Armstrong High Cadence on your low intensity rides

Hi, i was checking out the 1993 World's at Oslo on DVD and find out that a 21 years old Armstrong already had an above average high cadence. I used to think that he developed that after his cancer.

Nowadays my training is at low intensity mainly to lose fat or to keep it at bay and with my new cadence sensor at least I can focus on something else while doing it making the ride much more fun, i would really recommend a cadence sensor to my friends.

OK. Nice to know.

using low intensity riding as a means of burning fat is a bit of a myth. yes riding at lower intensity does on a percentage basis burn fat preferentially but when you ride at higher intensity you burn much more total calories such that you still end up burning more fat at the end of the day.

e.g. say at low intensity that 75% of the calories i burn are fat and at higher intensity it is only 50%. but at low intensity for 2hrs i burn 1000 Calories so 750 Cal are burned in fat.. and say at high intensity for 2hrs i burn 2000 Calories so 1000 Cals are burned in fat... so i'm still better off doing the high intensity exercise.

what you really want is to maximize load (intensity and time).

+1 This point still gets lost on a lot of folks.

The "fat burning zone" is a nice concept to get sedentary folks up off the sofa for a walk without having them fall over with coronaries during 2x20 sessions. But if you're healthy and already riding bikes regularly then ride to train and get more bang for for your buck in terms of burning calories.

Another reason to ride at decent training intensities is that increased fitness in terms of higher sustainable power means you'll burn more calories per hour for the same perceived exertion as you increase fitness.

Calories burned per hour are proportional to average power:

100 watts burns ~360 Calories per hour
200 watts burns ~720 Calories per hour
300 watts burns ~1080 Calories per hour

Raise your sustainable power and you'll burn more calories for each hour you ride, you'll be more likely to raise that sustainable power by training with at least moderate intensity not spinning away in the "fat burning zone".

You don't have to believe us, google "fat burning zone" and read any of the numerous hits on why this concept is flawed.

-Dave

Not to hijack the thread but I'm a believer in the "fat burning zone" myth.

Speaking from my own experience, higher intensity work leads to burning an overwhelming proportion of glycogen, stored energy that will need to be replaced after the workout. I will experience greater desire to eat after a higher intensity workout than a lower intensity, "fat burning" workout. Sure, I will have burned less total calories after the lower intensity work but I won't feel the strong desire to replace those burned calories either. And weight maintenance/loss is all about running a day-to-day caloric balance/deficit...

When I do low intensity stuff (<50% FTP) I'm really not concerned with cadence so much. I'll try and keep it above 80rpm, but keeping wattage (intensity) low is my primary concern. My $0.02CAN worth...

i'll shamelessly continue the tangent to say... < 50% FTP is such a low intensity that the rate of adaptation gained from riding that low an intensity is so minimal that that it is not even considered a training zone per se but a zone used to helps illicit recovery... when i'm talking low intensity i'm talking minimally endurance i.e. 55-75% FTP... riding at these intensities is fine you just must do so for much, much longer to get the same fat burning/total calories as higher intensity workout... this is why i say that load is the important thing.. if you have cycling peaks TSS

Preaching to the choir in most respects. I'm quite certain no one is attempting to elicit a training adaptation when riding low intensity for fat burning purposes. Recovery ride - fat burning ride, it's all just semantics of no significant consequence.

The OP stated his/her rides were of "low intensity" to burn/mitigate fat accumulation. As far I'm aware, there's no universally accepted definition of "low intensity"; it's a relative term and unique to each individual...My low intensity is lower than your low intensity - no big deal...

... sounds spiffing. I'll just remember to keep that high intensity going for 4 to 6 hour training rides in the hills. I'll be skinny AND fast in no time !@!@!!!

Maybe the guy/gal likes to take long rides on the bike or doesn't want to go fast.

Youhaditcoming - The big deal with Armstrong and cadence is that he started to use a higher cadence in the mountains, the theory being that whilst it puts a little more stress on the cardiovascular system it saves the legs a little. Note that during all his big attacks in the Tour's mountain stages, the small gears/fast pedalling ideal always seemed to go out the window as fast as his rivals seemingly went backwards.

i suggest you read, read again, then re-read...

you missed this (below).. it is in it's own paragraph and the very last thing in the post but... i'll just isolate it, and highlight it so you can't miss it this time..

***-->"what you really want is to maximize load (intensity and time)."<--*** ...

and i say in then next post for people that know power that's TSS..

***-->"if you have cycling peaks TSS"<--***

get it, got it, good... why don't stop trying to be such a smart ass and twisting peoples words and actually just read what they write for once.. some peoples kids..

Why not recommend that they watch the road while pedaling at a comfortable cadence?

__________________

I get it, seems as though you may not...

If you read what the OP put:




I dont see him mention anywhere that he wants to flog his brains out for an hour or that he's doing this for any other reason than not to gain weight and go out an smell the roses/get some fresh air. He may just like to ride.

... and the fact that he just got a cadence sensor somewhat implies that he doesn't have a couple of thousand dollars worth of hi-tech tomfoolery (aka power meter) strapped on his bike.

We don't even know how much time the guy spends on a bike, either. We don't even know that his "definition" or PE of "low intensity" rides are either. For all we know he could be spinning 52x17 around at 100rpm and whilsting Dixie...

As for the theory behind "burning" more calories when riding harder, that's fine to a point but only if you're taking into account time constraints. Taking Dave's examples:

200 watts burns ~720 Calories per hour
300 watts burns ~1080 Calories per hour

I could stuff several bottles on the bike and go ride all morning at 200 watts. 300 watts, well, that's a challenge and you aint gonna be seeing me ride a couple of hours at that level for a while. The net result is that I've expended more energy riding at 200 watts than I could at 300 and still be feeling pretty fresh for another ride the following day. Funnily enough that's pretty much what I'll be doing - long rides on the weekends and 90 minutes of staring at the garage floor several times a week on the trainer and I know for experience that's the way I lose weight the fastest.

As Ms Montana sings "You get the best of both worlds..."

Really...there are still those riders around..

Now that I want to see my friend...

but back to the calorie burn...honestly I really do not know why the big fuss...a calorie is a calorie is a calorie...now we want to argue about carb/protein/fat make up of the calories but from personal experience if I intake < outtake I loose weight ... I am really not sure if it is muscle or fat the body burns and I do not believe we can really control what the body will use for energy...this is just my personal experience.

I used to be able too... Not now though

oh, man! no, you actually don't get it...

when i say "maximize TSS" it actually does take into account the time you have to ride and how intense the ride can be... because the shorter the time you have to ride the higher intensity you are able to ride at and if fat burning is your goal the better off you are in the fat burning department as well if you ride more intensely when the duration is shorter..

for my self if i'm doing 6 hrs i can ride at probably 180-200W for something that long.. but if i only have 1 hr and maximum fat burning is my goal, it would be foolish to ride at that low an intensity.. i'd be much better off riding at threshold since i'm capable of it and i'd burn much more calories and fat at that intensity... the point is that thinking there is a fat burning zone (read intensity) is wrong... you will burn more calories and fat if you look at the time, figure out how intense you can make the ride, make it as intense as you can for the duration.. if you make it as intense as you are capable of for the duration you will be maximizing load/TSS just like i said..

so no, you didn't get it... hopefully you've got it now...

it really doesn't matter if the OP's intention is to smell the daisies or not.. if he thinks there is some zone/intensity associated with burning fat he is just dead wrong... you will burn the most fat by riding as intensely as you can for the duration... i.e. maximizing one's TSS or load for that particular ride.. he may or may not be interested in doing that, but that is how he would burn the most calories and fat...

dS, until such time as you've had your exhaled gases analyzed in a lab to determine what in actuality that you are burning for fuel and at what intensity, all you're doing is guessing/speculating/theorizing/etc. I can only speculate that now, of course, you'll proclaim that you've been lab tested after being called out.

You've probably seen the lab results I posted on another thread. I know where my best "fat burning zone" is. I also know at what intensity my fat utilization is zero(0). Do you? If you don't, you can't speak for me and what is the most efficient manner for me to burn fat - nor can you speak for anyone else for that matter. FYI, at threshold intensity I'm burning ZERO(0) fat calories. What does that say about your knowledge of the best manner to burn fat with limited time?

If you've never been analysed in a lab, you should do so asap. I think you'd be suprised at what you don't know.