On 24 Feb 2004 04:27:15 -0800, Dave Kahn wrote:

> Steve Holdoway <steve@itemfront.ltd.uk> wrote in message
> news:<rbvl309bdpotmp99n7elet2bh32t87adoi@4ax.com>...
>
>> The difference is that you're not carrying your bodyweight very often when on the bike!
>> Triathletes ( especially fat ones like me! ) notice this very early on, where the perceived level
>> of effort returns a varied heart rate depending on which sport you're doing. Running is always
>> the highest!
>
> It depends on a lot of factors. My max heart rate is about 15 bpm higher for cycling than for
> running.

This is very strange and contrary to everything I have ever read about HRMs. Have you done stress
tests for both activites? Here's one for running: http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/hrm2.htm Read all
the warnings!

> For those unfortunate enough to live in an area lacking hills (did I say unfortunate ?) it is
> possible to carry out a test on a flat piece of road or at your local running track. The plan of
> attack is to run 800 meters very quick. For the first 400 meters run at up to your current
> 90/95% MHR (to be achieved by the end of the first lap) and for the last 400 go for it. During
> this second lap you should max out. Very fit athletes may have to repeat this test after a few
> minutes rest (minimum of 65% MHR) to be able to achieve a true maximum. This test is very
> reliable.

You can do something similar on a bike but it's not a good idea to do it on the road - in case
you collapse.

--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "I feel so miserable without you, it's almost like having you
here." -Stephen Bishop www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

Simon Mason wrote:
> I got one of those HRMs from ALDI for 14.99 a few weeks ago. My max heart rate for my age is 175,
> so I headed off into the local hills one cold January night to see what my heart runs at whilst
> cycling. Attacking Skidby hill which goes to about 200ft in half a mile, the rate went to around
> 140 and I could not get it to go above 150 even pushing myself quite hard. Indeed, cruising along
> on the level later on the rate ticked along at 115 which is fine for fat burning, but of less use
> for training for fitness.
>

That's the problem with HRMs and MHRs. Everybody if different. My MHR should be 150 according to the
formula but its actually around 200 and I can cruise all day at 160. Others are equally the other
side. Forget the formula and work out what the right figures are for you. Or throw it away and
listen to what your body is telling you.

Tony

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:52:20 -0000, Tony Raven wrote:

> Simon Mason wrote:
>> I got one of those HRMs from ALDI for 14.99 a few weeks ago. My max heart rate for my age is 175,
>> so I headed off into the local hills one cold January night to see what my heart runs at whilst
>> cycling. Attacking Skidby hill which goes to about 200ft in half a mile, the rate went to around
>> 140 and I could not get it to go above 150 even pushing myself quite hard. Indeed, cruising along
>> on the level later on the rate ticked along at 115 which is fine for fat burning, but of less use
>> for training for fitness.
>>
>
> That's the problem with HRMs and MHRs. Everybody if different. My MHR should be 150 according to
> the formula but its actually around 200 and I can cruise all day at 160. Others are equally the
> other side. Forget the formula and work out what the right figures are for you. Or throw it away
> and listen to what your body is telling you.
>
> Tony

Crikey Tony, are you really 70? I guessed you were much younger than that.

(Or might you be using a dodgy formula? MHR = 220 - Age is the most commonly quoted. Another is
MHR = 205 - (Age/2). Or are you talking about the upper range of your training heart rate zone -
85% of MHR?)

You can only get an accurate determination of MHR by doing a stress test and not many people do,
because it's bloody hard.
--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "I feel so miserable without you, it's almost like having you
here." -Stephen Bishop www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

"Michael MacClancy" <herzelNOSPAM@o2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fmwnnmuko3my$.1w6qmpni21xfi.dlg@40tude.net...

> You can only get an accurate determination of MHR by doing a stress test and not many people do,
> because it's bloody hard.

Another way of looking at it is your Lactate threshold. (warped from the Burke and Pavelka book).

They have an approximation of what that is of - the most you can sustain for 30 minutes. I played
about with this whilst running, and found that I had a fairly marked threshold where 175 was
possible, but pushing it further was pointlessly tiring and difficult to recover from.

Even if it isn't really the LT, its a damn useful red line to know about. Going over it probably
even slows me down in the long run as it takes some doing to recover from.

"Temp3st" <temp3st@noharvest.lyspamtasticcos.co.uk.die.spam> wrote in
message news:5lG_b.11363$Y%6.1062107@wards.force9.net...
>
> "elyob" <newsprofile@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:tUE_b.833$FX1.8003645@news-
> text.cableinet.net...
> >
> > "Graham" <gtgelliott@hotmailDOT.com> wrote in message news:c1f4td$ecf$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't think listening to yhe radio while riding a bike is a good
> idea
> > !
> > >
> >
> > I listen to the radio in one ear myself, and that's on a commute. I can still hear aproaching
> > traffic.
> >
> >
>
> that's maybe true but your mind could be elsewhere
>
>

True, but with the number of lifesavers I have to do, it's difficult to 'phase out'.

Michael MacClancy wrote:
>
> Crikey Tony, are you really 70? I guessed you were much younger than that.
>
> (Or might you be using a dodgy formula? MHR = 220 - Age is the most commonly quoted. Another is
> MHR = 205 - (Age/2). Or are you talking about the upper range of your training heart rate zone -
> 85% of MHR?)
>
> You can only get an accurate determination of MHR by doing a stress test and not many people do,
> because it's bloody hard.

Whoops, your right, I was thinking 220 not 200 when I wrote it.

As for MHR stress testing, the figure I have is just the highest I've seen it go. My true MHR could
well be over 200 but I'm not intending to find out.

Tony

Michael MacClancy <herzelNOSPAM@o2.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1omip84g610ed$.14jrzqmq5emxv.dlg@40tude.net>...
> On 24 Feb 2004 04:27:15 -0800, Dave Kahn wrote:

> > It depends on a lot of factors. My max heart rate is about 15 bpm higher for cycling than for
> > running.
>
> This is very strange and contrary to everything I have ever read about HRMs. Have you done stress
> tests for both activites? Here's one for running: http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/hrm2.htm Read
> all the warnings!

It's because the amount of running I do is much less than the amount of cycling. When I do a brick
session I get off the bike feeling great but as soon as I start running I feel as though I'm reading
water until my heart rate has come down a bit. With more running that would doubtless change. I've
done a cycling stress test, but not a running one so admittedly I don't have a properly measured mhr
for running.

--
Dave...

Hay David,

Are you sure? I think you need some physiology revision. ;-)

Looking at your first point. Are you trying to tell me that no energy is used (i.e. kcals burned) when the ATP-PC (or alactic) energy system is used or during the recovery of the ATP concentrations following their use?

I won't pick on your other funny points. :-D

As for your comment "If you go hell for leather for one hour but
then cannot continue, you will burn less than trundling for eight hours". That wasn't what I suggested in my post, I said "exercise for as hard as you can for as long as you have available; be that 10 mins or 8 hours". The key point you missed out on was "as long as you have available". Perhaps you would like to read the post again.

Oh, good luck on the weight loss. Not sure about your carbohydrates comment; have you been reading Atkins??? (Try eating a healthy and balanced diet (not low carb/high fat or high protein) and reducing the calories).

__________________
www.cyclingforums.com

Taking each of your points one at a time:

1) This is the basis of weight watchers and most diets. If you eat less energy than you use you will lose weight; infact if you eat 3500 kcals less than you use you will lose ~1lb of body fat. This is fairly basic physiology.

500g of carbohydrate is about 2000 kcals, that would be more than most people need for a day without exercise. The body only stores about 100g of carbohydrate anyway (in the form of blood glucose and glycogen); hency why you get the bonk after between 1 and 2.5 hours of riding (depending upon intensity).

People don't eat to 'catch up' as you suggest; its actualy fairly easy and healthy to eat as much as 1000 kcals than you use on a daily basis.

2) The point I was making was simply that if you exercise as hard as you can for as long as you have available you will maximise energy expendature. I wasn't taking into account hunger, lifestyle, motivation or any other factor. This point is IMPORTANT because on forums like this people tell each other that to lose weight do 1 to 2 hours at 60% of max HR three times a week... this is bad advice as this level of training does little for fitness and doesn't acheive maximum energy expendature. The point I was making was simply... if you want to use as many calories as you can in a single session work as hard as you can for the length of the session (be that running up stairs or an 8 hour ride).

3) Again, I wasn't suggesting this as an exercise plan in the same way that people shouldn't suggest "1 to 2 hours at 60% max HR".
As for not being able to ride after a 1 hour hard session, well thats perhaps a personal thing, but even a 25 mile TT isn't hard to recover from!

__________________
www.cyclingforums.com

2LAP <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com>typed

> Hay David,

> Are you sure? I think you need some physiology revision. ;-)

You obviously have never suffered from a bad bout of 'the bonk' or 'hunger knock'! If you have
almost no glucose/glycogen YOU CANNOT MOVE!

If you're not moving, the kcals/joules whatever won't get burned...

--
Helen D. Vecht: helenvecht@zetnet.co.uk Edgware.

"Gearid Laoi/Garry Lee" <glee@iol.ie> writes:

>ANY exercise will burn fat. Twirling effortlessly will burn fat. The rate at which it burns it is
>another matter.

>People who walk fast think that they burn more fat per mile. They don't. They just burn it faster.

That might be true on wheels. It's certainly not true of walking on legs, which have to be
accelerated and decelerated for every step.
--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On 25/2/04 4:32 pm, in article l64%b.11547$j16.3879@fe11.usenetserver.com,
"2LAP" <usenet-forum@cyclingforums.com> wrote:

>
> Are you sure? I think you need some physiology revision. ;-)

Well I'll just pop over the road and talk to my colleagues who are world leaders in exercise
metabolism and metabolic disorders.. And if you think the comment about eating directly after
exercise is funny, I suggest you go and read the appropriate literature.

> Looking at your first point. Are you trying to tell me that no energy is used (i.e. kcals burned)
> when the ATP-PC (or alactic) energy system is used or during the recovery of the ATP
> concentrations following their use?

No, but you need to understand the idea of flux and steady state. ATP burning above a certain level
is not sustainable as it has to be replenished. It can be replenished from a number of sources in
various ways:

1: glycogen breakdown without oxygen :- this leads to lactic acid buildup which will rapidly (5-10
mins scale) render you unable to move as you will be in oxygen debt, have massive lactic acid
build up and the muscles will give up.

2: aerobic glycogen breakdown :- sustainable till the glycogen runs out, then you bonk

3: glucogenesis from fat :- sustainable relatively indefinitely (ie all day).

The speed of glucose production is 1>2>3. If you take pure glucose (ie in an 'energy drink' or
somesuch) you will slow down glucogenesis from glycogen and fat, leading to a slump in energy worse
than before taking the supplement as you have to restart the glucogenesis.

> As for your comment "If you go hell for leather for one hour but then cannot continue, you will
> burn less than trundling for eight hours". That wasn't what I suggested in my post, I said
> "exercise for as hard as you can for as long as you have available; be that 10 mins or 8 hours".

Well if I exercise as hard as I can I can't keep that up for eight hours. It is about maximising
long term burn. There is little point in knackering yourself with inappropriate exercise.

> The key point you missed out on was "as long as you have available". Perhaps you would like to
> read the post again.
>
> Oh, good luck on the weight loss. Not sure about your carbohydrates comment; have you been reading
> Atkins??? (Try eating a healthy and balanced diet (not low carb/high fat or high protein) and
> reducing the calories).

well, seeing as fat biosynthesis is from glucose, and dietary fat has relatively little effect on
fatty tissue build up (compared to carbs) and as carbs will inhibit glucogenesis from fat (feedback
inhibition through activation of various kinase signalling cascades by binding of the appropriate
kinases to glycogen phosphate), reducing carbohydrate intake whilst maintaining a balanced diet
otherwise is a reasonably justifiable step. The high carb/low fat diet appears to not work terribly
well for me, moderate fat, low starch and glucose/sucrose seems to work very well.

..d

"David Martin" <d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:BC629422.E7C0%d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk...

> Well I'll just pop over the road and talk to my colleagues who are world leaders in exercise
> metabolism and metabolic disorders.

I imagine that this means that you are not actually a biochemist etc. !

> And if you think the comment about eating directly after exercise is funny, I suggest you
go
> and read the appropriate literature.

Is this all foods, or are you actually talking about glycogen uptake? If you don't replenish that,
you won't be doing much exercise.

> 1: glycogen breakdown without oxygen :- this leads to lactic acid buildup which will rapidly (5-10
> mins scale) render you unable to move as you will be in oxygen debt, have massive lactic acid
> build up and the muscles will give up.

well, glucose really, but thats a moderate nit-pick

> 2: aerobic glycogen breakdown :- sustainable till the glycogen runs out, then you bonk
>
> 3: glucogenesis from fat :- sustainable relatively indefinitely (ie all day).

You keep talking about that. its a minor thing, thats used very specifically for things that need
glucose like the brain. That is not the correct term for "running on fat" that muscles do if they
have plenty of oxygen (ie lower exercise rate)

> The speed of glucose production is 1>2>3. If you take pure glucose (ie in
an
> 'energy drink' or somesuch) you will slow down glucogenesis from glycogen and fat, leading to a
> slump in energy worse than before taking the supplement as you have to restart the glucogenesis.

Hmmm. That doesn't sound too familiar. Your terms seem all mixed up. surely "glucose consumption
1>2>3", not "production". I don't know why you bring up drinking "pure glucose" (sic), that sounds
like its got a lot more to do with insulin and control of the amount of blood sugar.

By the way - do you actually know the meaning of "glucogenesis" - it seems to be a confused term
that means many things and nothing at the same time.

> well, seeing as fat biosynthesis is from glucose, and dietary fat has relatively little effect on
> fatty tissue build up (compared to carbs)

uh oh, atkins stuff. Where does the fat you eat go when you eat too much.

> and as carbs will inhibit glucogenesis from fat (feedback inhibition through activation of various
> kinase signalling cascades by binding of the appropriate kinases to glycogen phosphate)

Do you actually understand that excess detail there. Strikes me as science being warped into psuedo
science. <atkins alert!

On 25/2/04 7:06 pm, in article c1irna$5qo$1@sparta.btinternet.com, "W K"
<hyagillot@tesco.net> wrote:

>
> "David Martin" <d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:BC629422.E7C0%d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk...
>
>> Well I'll just pop over the road and talk to my colleagues who are world leaders in exercise
>> metabolism and metabolic disorders.
>
> I imagine that this means that you are not actually a biochemist etc. !

Protein chemist/bioinformaticist currently working on metabolic pathway reconstruction.

>> And if you think the comment about eating directly after exercise is funny, I suggest you
> go
>> and read the appropriate literature.
>
> Is this all foods, or are you actually talking about glycogen uptake?

Glycogen isn't taken up, it is synthesised in the cell.

> If you don't replenish that, you won't be doing much exercise.
>
>> 1: glycogen breakdown without oxygen :- this leads to lactic acid buildup which will rapidly (5-
>> 10 mins scale) render you unable to move as you will be in oxygen debt, have massive lactic
>> acid build up and the muscles will give up.
>
> well, glucose really, but thats a moderate nit-pick

talking about glycogen stores being broken down to give glucose. this is then consumed
anaerobically.

>
>> 2: aerobic glycogen breakdown :- sustainable till the glycogen runs out, then you bonk

likewise but aerobically.
>>
>> 3: glucogenesis from fat :- sustainable relatively indefinitely (ie all day).
>
> You keep talking about that. its a minor thing, thats used very specifically for things that need
> glucose like the brain. That is not the correct term for "running on fat" that muscles do if they
> have plenty of oxygen (ie lower exercise rate)
>
>> The speed of glucose production is 1>2>3. If you take pure glucose (ie in
> an
>> 'energy drink' or somesuch) you will slow down glucogenesis from glycogen and fat, leading to a
>> slump in energy worse than before taking the supplement as you have to restart the glucogenesis.
>
> Hmmm. That doesn't sound too familiar. Your terms seem all mixed up. surely "glucose consumption
> 1>2>3", not "production".

Well, as you need to produce glucose from reserves in order to maintain any sort of steady state
then glucose production should more or less equal glucose consumption.

> I don't know why you bring up drinking "pure glucose" (sic), that sounds like its got a lot more
> to do with insulin and control of the amount of blood sugar.

And blood sugar gives rise to replenishment of energy stores in the muscles. So if blood sugar drops
- the body has to release more. If blood sugar goes up, the body closes down glucose production.

>
> By the way - do you actually know the meaning of "glucogenesis" - it seems to be a confused term
> that means many things and nothing at the same time.
>
>> well, seeing as fat biosynthesis is from glucose, and dietary fat has relatively little effect on
>> fatty tissue build up (compared to carbs)
>
> uh oh, atkins stuff. Where does the fat you eat go when you eat too much.

Well, it was shown many many years ago that dietary fat (ie the fats and oils you eat in your food)
does not create the fat that sits in the spare tyre or so without passing through part of the same
metabolic route as the products of carbohydrate breakdown. I don't have a copy of metabolic pathways
to hand (it is at work and I am at home and away from the lab for a few days) otherwise I'd quote
more specifically.

And apart from that which goes straight through, biosynthesis into a number of different things
including (eventually) fatty acids.

>> and as carbs will inhibit glucogenesis from fat (feedback inhibition through activation of
>> various kinase signalling cascades by binding of the appropriate kinases to glycogen phosphate)
>
> Do you actually understand that excess detail there.
Yes. I had lunch today with the people who discovered a lot of these control cascades.
> Strikes me as science being warped into psuedo science. <atkins alert!>

The atkins diet works for some but not for the reasons atkins puts forward. I wouldn't support it
as a suitable diet. However, I don't believe that a high carb, low fat diet is any better.
Moderation, plenty of fruit and veg and making sure you balance input and output are the key things
in a good diet.

..d

Simon Mason wrote:
>
> Attacking Skidby hill which goes to about 200ft in half a mile, the rate went to around 140 and I
> could not get it to go above 150 even pushing myself quite hard.

Cycling on the road, I can only push my heart rate up to 188 (measured maximum) up hills, standing,
and using my arms to move the bike side to side. Off road, just looking at a steep single track
descent makes it hit 175...

> I then thought I'd try it while playing 5 a side football outside with my workmates. I was stunned
> to see after only 20 minutes, the rate at the max 175! It was typically in the 160 - 175 region
> all through the game

Anyway, running is harder than cycling, so it's not that surprising that it gets your heart rate
up further. If you want to reach your maximum on a bike, you're going to have to push yourself
very hard for a fairly short time - if you can keep it up for more than a few minutes, you're not
doing enough.

> One odd thing happened - I listen to AM radio on my rides which is inside a remote control
> attached to my jacket at chest level, right next to the chest strap. Even though the transmitted
> signal from the sensor is 5 kHz, the radio picks it up, meaning that I can hear my heart rate as
> an audible "pip" in my earpieces.

Probably just affecting the amplification stages, not the reception.