Fat loss - Page 2

I was coming at it mostly from the glycogen depletion route (see my earlier comments about L4 quality when depleted) however what I find is that doing things like being bonked for long periods of time makes it more likely that I will overeat later. For one thing, my sense of normalcy gets altered due to low blood glucose and I start doing out-of-the-ordinary things (that is, I find it to be mind altering). The other thing is that it seems to just make me very, very hungry later and it's hard to exercise "fork control" when I'm ravenous. I think we can all relate to that.

I know that you are supposed to do a long ride and then only eat a cheese sandwich - because, you know, the pros do it - but long term, it just doesn't work for me.

I'm currently trying something a little different for me. I'm eating mostly low-glycemic index foods most of time. There are occasional exceptions but the only firm one is during and after exercise when I need high glycemic index foods to replace my glycogen stores. As an example, my breakfast used to be composed of a lot of high index stuff like sweet cereals, jams, high index breads, etc. Now, I'm eating non-fat yogurt, fruits, whole-grain breads (whole rye, pumpernickel, etc.), almond/cashew/peanut butter (lots of fat there!). I'm also laying off the high index snacks during the day and in the evening as I suspect they were affecting my metabolism and making it harder for me to sleep at night. So far, so good but it's only been 2 weeks. I feel really good, sleep quality has been consistently good (that's new for me) and I'm overall eating less than I used to with less need to snack.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

I agree with all your observations Steve. FWIW, my wife is a registered dietician and does quite a bit of work related to eating disorders (including the athlete subpopulation which tends to get ignored relative to the more common teenage anorexics and bulimics) and what you describe is classic in eating disorders.

Our brain feeds soley on glucose, if we don't keep our sugars appropriately topped up our body responds by metabolizing proteins through ketoacidosis to feed our brains. Anyone that's bonked on a long ride knows a bit about the tunnel vision, lack of focus, irratability and basic compromised brain function that comes from dropping into this state.

Anyway, the point is that eating disorder patients who chronically starve themselves often reach a point where they're not capable of making rational choices and suffer from impaired decision making, particularly in subjects related to food. So your experience is pretty typical and a good reason to avoid starvation weight loss strategies.

Another one is a really interesting study I first came across in Dan Bernadot's Advanced Sports Nutrition book. Basically the study took two groups of athletes and put them on isocaloric diets for an extended period (6 to 8 weeks IIRC) both groups were exercising and eating in a calorically balanced way so there's no surprise that at the end of the study their scale weights were very similar. The big difference is that one group ate 3 large meals per day to get those calories on board and the other group ate small meals and snacks much more frequently but with the same number of total calories.

At the end of the study even though scale weight was roughly the same for both groups, the 3 meal per day group had higher percent body fat and lower lean muscle mass. The frequent eaters had lower body fat and higher lean muscle mass. This is kinda obvious but a really interesting outcome for athletes. If you buy into these results then eating smaller meals throughout the day will lead to lower body fat and higher lean muscle mass for the same caloric intake.

The hypothesis is that the 3 meal per day strategy basically puts our body through mini caloric boom bust cycles or mini starvation-binge cycles. Our bodies metabolize muscle mass to get through the mini starvation periods then store excess calories as fat during the mini binge periods. Over time it leads to the results observed in this study.

Like any study it's open to criticism and debate but it encouraged me to avoid bonking whenever possible and to redistribute my eating in a way that avoids big meals and includes frequent healthy snacks throughout the day. I try to eat something at least every two hours throughout the day and have cut back a bit on portion sizes during the main meals. I haven't done a body fat test in many years, but I certainly have maintained weight using this approach and have felt great on and off the bike.

-Dave

Agreed again.

I'm sure you know this, but the high vs. low glycemic index of individual foods ignores what happens when you combine foods. For instance a baked potato is high GI if you eat it in total isolation and don't eat the skin. Add some fat, protein or even the fiber in the skin of the potato and the insulin response is much lower.

A lot of the discussion of high GI vs. low GI foods ignores the effect of combining during real world meals. Anyway, not arguing your choice to avoid high GI foods, just pointing out that the GI of the individual foods isn't nearly as important as the total meal and you can lower the resulting insulin response by smart food combining. Usually all it takes is a bit of fat, protein or fiber to substantially reduce the insulin response and effective GI of the meal.

So a rice cake eaten alone as a mid day snack is relatively high GI, add a bit of peanut butter and the effective GI of the combined snack is lower plus it will tend to stay with you longer.

-Dave

That's partially why they came up with glycemic load.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_load

Yeah, I got really strict about GI for a while just to see if it made any difference. Maybe it's psycological but it seems to have made some. Combining doesn't seem to be a total no-no. BTW - I went back to the multiple smaller meals per day approach to living at the same time and I know that this has some positive benefits. I already proved that once. I lost some weight doing that before.

The contrarian view on GI (or really GL) and weight loss from the Wikipedia article:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/4/1023

I didn't get into the low GI/GL thing necessarily for weight loss reasons but if it comes anyway (despite the research paper's findings), I'll take it.

I did that last year with good success in losing weight. Unfortunately, it did nothing to help me build my FTP and I felt over trained most of the season. I put on muscle very easy and along with %BF dropping I lost quite of bit of lean muscle mass built from my alpine ski workout sessions(gym) during the winter. Looking back, I shouldn't have done these lipolysis rides for 3+ hours(w/carb intake after 1 hour). I should of limited them to 1 - 1.5 hrs. and I probably would have been OK. Last year I struggled to get 800 TSS a week. Currently for this week I have 1143 TSS and I'm going to finish today with a +350 tempo ride. What the guys say here really works as my FTP jumped 21%(only 2 yrs. training with power meter/TP software) this season and I feel fresh for each ride. Although my %BF isn't down to where it was last year at this time, my power numbers are up across the board.

Well, you are sort of contradicting yourself. On one end you say good luck doing all your rides at L4/L5 level. And I completely agree with that. No one can do that day in and day out. Hence, the question above should be what burns more calories, 1 hour at L4 level or 6 hours at L2?

I'd say 6 hrs at L2, and the nice thing is you can do 6 hrs at L2 day every day. I certainly did when touring, up to 12 hours a day actually.

However, if you only have one hour to train, then and only then spending that hour in L4 is better than spending it at L2 level (i.e. it burns more calories). However, even then you might not be able to do L4 effort each day. So, the gist of it is, if you don't have time to train, you are screwed .

Now we're diving down the rabbit hole of definitions and semantics. If you look at a lot of the published diet books and on line advice that advocates the "fat burning zone" you'll see it barely makes the upper reaches of Coggan's L1 much less L2. You'll see recommendations for walks over jogs because they "burn more fat". Look at the bogus HR zone graphs imprinted on many gym treadmills and ergs and ask yourself if staying in their fat burning zone takes you into L2, it doesn't get me close. The OP was talking about extending his recovery rides on just that premise which makes it neither training nor recovery.

My only argument with six hour L2 rides as a weight loss strategy is the common tendency for cyclists to dramatically overeat after really long rides. Sure bike touring is probably very different, especially if you're traveling self contained. I sure dropped an awful lot of weight on high altitude mountaineering expeditions even though I ate about as much as I could tolerate every day but it's not really what folks here are talking about and FWIW I never kept any of that weight off once I got home with more normal energy expenditures and abundant calories.

I like the way kmavm put it, "Train to get stronger, eat to get leaner.."

-Dave

Greg Lemond was actually talking about this in a past issue of Pro Cycling. (I cannot find the magazine so cannot quote exactly) he said long rides relieve certain stress hormones which tend to lead overeating.

__________________
"It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."

1. Fat burning is a continuum. What you burn in Zone 2, you also burn in zones 4 and 5. Of course, you can do more zone 2 in a week without cracking compared to zone 4/5.

2. Fat burns in the flame of carbohydrates. Think about it. Fuel your fire.

3. Ride lots and don't eat crap.

4. Fuel your rides properly, don't bonk, this prevents binge-eating (usually crap) immediately following a ride.

I don't know if there's any real proof of that but I can definitely believe it.

Dave, what do you eat exactly after a workout and through the day (if it is not a secret)? I assume vegetables, fruits, nuts, lean meat, etc. (trough the day) ? My recovery meal consists of puffed wheat with some skim milk (any idea if this is good?).

FWIW, get Monique Ryan's book on Nutrition for Endurance Athletes. it explains much, and provides great guidance in g/kg COH for many pre-during-post workout guides.

Wenzel Coaching also has a very, very good paper on nutrition for their athletes.

OP here. Got a quick question. If I do a longish L2 or L3, but suck down a couple bottles of 'energy' drink, am I burning much fat at all or simply the simple sugars I am ingesting follwed by the glycogen/fat mix...

__________________
-Meek
"Some people train to look pretty. I just train so I can be the strongest man there is. And then again, I'm already pretty." -Magnus Samuelsson

You'll be burning quite a bit of fat at an L2/L3 pace.

As someone else pointed out you've really got to consider overall calories per day, not the specific breakdown of energy sources during your workouts.

Look at it this way, in addition to your riding you burn calories during your daily activities and burn calories simply to stay alive. There's a lot of ways to tally your baseline energy needs like BMR, RMR, etc. but the point is you'll have to find the calories to just get through the day in addition to your workouts. And most of the day you'll be at an intensity level that mostly burns fat.

So let's say your RMR or RMR plus typical non athletic daily activities requires 2000 Calories. You add a 2000 Calorie workout session on top of that for a total of say 4000 Calories burned over 24 hours. Let's say you replace 3500 of those Calories througout the day including what you eat and drink while working out. You'll be running a net 500 Calorie per day deficit. Where do you think your body finds those extra 500 Calories beyond what you've ingested that it needs to get through the day? Yeah, it comes from our abundant fat stores. IOW, as long as you maintain a caloric deficit over the long haul your body will have to mine its fat reserves to keep you going.

Maintain that 500 Calorie deficit for a full week and you'll burn a pound of fat. You won't burn a pound of carbs and unless you seriously starve yourself and neglect to keep your glycogen topped up you won't burn a pound of protein. You just don't have those kind of reserves stored anywhere in your body, but you've got plenty of fat to burn (no insult, we all do) and that's the body's preferred fuel source during those 20 plus hours when you're not out exercising.

Keep an eye on the big picture, fuel yourself before, during and after your workouts so you can keep doing them throughout the week and focus on overall daily caloric balance to lose weight which includes "fork control" as someone pointed out.

Good luck,
-Dave