PartisanRanger said:Do conventional frames even support 300 lbs. of weight?
Gee, where did you get that idea? It's a complete rubbish. It's the intensity that determines the ratio of fat:sugar you burn from the workout. Lower the intensity is, the more fat you burn, and vice versa.Insaneclimber said:My simpleton explination
The body starts to burn the fat after about 2 hrs of excercise, so just ride long.
Short rides will only burn sugars which your body will replace easily.
Idiotsugaken said:Gee, where did you get that idea? It's a complete rubbish. It's the intensity that determines the ratio of fat:sugar you burn from the workout. Lower the intensity is, the more fat you burn, and vice versa.
And you don't have to burn fat to lose weight. As others have already said, you just have to expend more energy than you eat.
That said, however, I find it easier to lose weight through low intensity workouts because you have to replenish muscle/liver glycogen by eating carbohydrate after high intensity training, and theoretically you can still lose weight that way, it's harder to eat just enough carbo to replenish the lost glycogen store so that you can maintain the intensity of your workout but you don't have excess carbo that is resynthesized and stored as body fat. IOW, I easily overeat.
So, if my main objective was to lose weight, I'd do by combining low intensity (L2-L3) rides with reduced caloric intake.
Wow. I guess I'm an "idiot," too. I had the impression my body was pretty happy at interconverting between its various energy stores. Care to elaborate on your somewhat unorthodox theories about energy balance and metabolism?Insaneclimber said:Idiot
Actually high intensity exercise burns at least as much fat as low intensity exercise, but much more sugar, so you tire a lot quicker. Low intensity exercise burns fat slowly but because you can keep going longer you end up burning more.sugaken said:Gee, where did you get that idea? It's a complete rubbish. It's the intensity that determines the ratio of fat:sugar you burn from the workout. Lower the intensity is, the more fat you burn, and vice versa.
ZimboNC said:My opinion is that it really doesn't matter what you eat so long as you burn more calories than you eat. And you're not going to know that unless you track your intake/expenditure using a tracker like FitDay.com (or some other free site like FitDay).
To burn a lot of calories you're going to need to be able to stay on the bike long enough to burn a lot of calories. Sounds dumb, right? But it means going nice and easy rather than fast and furious.
As tempted as you're going to be to try to drop 100 pounds in 100 days, the best chance you have to meet your long term fitness goals is to lose about 1 pound per week. That means an average daily caloric deficit of only 500 calories.
Having said that, I'll share with you what might be an unpopular opinion: the key to losing weight is NOT burning more calories. The key is consuming fewer calories. This forum and many other forums like it are filled with people who burn thousands and thousands of calories each week from exercise and still wish they could lose 5, 10, 15, or even 50 pounds.
--Steve
First - what is "YMMV"normZurawski said:fitday.com - burn 500 calories more than you eat every day. No more. It's that simple.
All the other posts are merely suggestions of how you attain the item above. I have been through them all. Some work for me, some don't. YMMV. Figure out which ones work for you. And don't give up easily.
Also know that it takes a long long time to make changes permanent.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.