Is training at 80% of MHR the best way to lose weight?

[sergen]

At 5ft 10 and 182 pounds, I've set myself the target of getting down to 170 pounds by summer, which I need to do to climb the hills more effectively.

Assuming that my dietary intake is balanced, I'd like some advice on the best zone I should be in for training. I'm looking to do 3 or 4 two hour sessions per week and would like to concentrate on losing the weight rather than any interval work.

Given that 80% of MHR is close to the limit of an average person's aerobic capacity, I figured that riding at this level for the longest amount of time possible (without going anerobic) would be the best solution for weight loss.

Any comments would be appreciated on this weight-loss strategy.

 

[frenchyge]

As an alternative, I'd suggest training to maximize your hill climbing power while at the same time watching your calorie intake to drop the pounds by summer. That'll give you a hill climbing double-whammy!

Also, the transition to chiefly anaerobic energy production happens well over 90% MHR. Limiting your training to <80% MHR is not necessary (or even preferred) for a trained cyclist trying to lose weight, and your cycling fitness will probably suffer for it if you do.

 

[Doctor Morbius]

Dietary manipulation is the most efficient and effective way to lose weight.

As far as aerobic training is concerned, high intensity interval training is the best way to burn fat via exercise and throughout the day via thermogenic effects due to an increased metabolic rate.

The caveat to training this way is recovery. Few people are fit enough to train this way and be recovered enough in 24 hours to do it again. Taking this into consideration, 80% MaxHR (or what I refer to as Tempo) may be the best alternative after dietary manipulation.

You may want to do a search on "weight loss" as this topic gets rehashed frequently. There's a lot of qualty scientific information that has already been posted mixed in with opinions and myths.

Edit: Here are a couple of links courtesy of Biker-Linz:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=11319629

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=8028502

I agree with RickF's post below this one unless the exercise duration is low. It takes > 20 minutes to start burning fat efficiently. If the exercise duration is low then one had better crank it! No dawdling allowed.

 

[RickF]

A study conducted by Duke University and published Jan. 12, 2004, in the Archives of Internal Medicine showed a dose-response relationship between exercise and weight loss (i.e., the more you exercise, the more weight you lose). http://www.dukemednews.org/news/article.php?id=7325

Another study conducted by Duke showed that exercising six days per week resulted in greater weight reduction than doing twice as much work but on three days per week (i.e., even though the total amount of work per week was the same, the group that exercised moderately six days per week lost more weight than the group that exercised heavily three days per week. (I will post the reference when I find it - I heard the presentation at the American College of Cardiology meeting last spring, but I do not have the reference handy.)

Exercising heavily three days per week will cause a greater increase in muscle mass than does exercising moderately six days per week, but exercising moderately six days per week causes greater fat loss than exercising heavily three days per week.

The best would be to exercise heavily six days per week, but if the goal is to lose fat, then exercising six days per week, even if it is lighter intensity, is better than exercising three days per week at a higher intensity.

 

[dhk]

At 5ft 10 and 182 pounds, I've set myself the target of getting down to 170 pounds by summer, which I need to do to climb the hills more effectively.

Assuming that my dietary intake is balanced, I'd like some advice on the best zone I should be in for training. I'm looking to do 3 or 4 two hour sessions per week and would like to concentrate on losing the weight rather than any interval work.

Given that 80% of MHR is close to the limit of an average person's aerobic capacity, I figured that riding at this level for the longest amount of time possible (without going anerobic) would be the best solution for weight loss.

Any comments would be appreciated on this weight-loss strategy.

From personal experience, I'd say moderate exercise of 30-60 minutes every day would be best for your weight loss. Since 80% of max HR is not an easy level to maintain, unless you're well-trained already, recommend starting out no higher than 65-70% intensity. After 2-3 weeks, if you're feeling comfortable, you could move up to 75%, but I wouldn't go any higher.

Volume and daily consistency will make the difference, and help to reduce your hunger as well. Higher intensity work takes recovery time, and could leave you too tired, sore or injured to ride every day.

Also, believe the key to dieting and weight loss is to maintain a steady blood sugar level. Moderate daily exercise will help achieve this, but after a hard workout, your appetite will likely increase for high-glycemic starches and sugars.

Besides, if you discipline yourself to stay away from high-intensity until you've gotten the weight off, you can look forward to high-intensity climbing in the spring as your reward. Good luck to you.

 

[JTE83]

I went from 205 lbs to as low as 139.2 by biking in the 80% to 88% MHR range. And I did it doing 3 long distance workouts per week (38 to 54 mile rides). Most of my workouts were in the 83% to 87% range.

If I can lose or maintain my weight with 30 min rides each day after work I'd be happy too.

It took me 634 miles / 1 month to lose 5 lbs.

 

[SolarEnergy]

As an alternative, I'd suggest training to maximize your hill climbing power while at the same time watching your calorie intake to drop the pounds by summer. That'll give you a hill climbing double-whammy!

I like that !

Dietary manipulation is the most efficient and effective way to lose weight.

Bravo !

 

[robkit]

As far as aerobic training is concerned, high intensity interval training is the best way to burn fat via exercise and throughout the day via thermogenic effects due to an increased metabolic rate.

i agree with the rest of your post, but is this bit right? the gas exchange analysis that i saw after my VO2 max test demonstrates that the closer you get to threshold and also above it, most calorie consumption is from carbs not fat. for me it illustrated tht i burn the most fat, per unit of time, when at 155bpm (threshold at 185-90ish)

 

[dhk]

I went from 205 lbs to as low as 139.2 by biking in the 80% to 88% MHR range. And I did it doing 3 long distance workouts per week (38 to 54 mile rides). Most of my workouts were in the 83% to 87% range.

If I can lose or maintain my weight with 30 min rides each day after work I'd be happy too.

It took me 634 miles / 1 month to lose 5 lbs.

Agree with the posters that say it still gets back to diet, regardless of the intensity of training. My experience has been that riding big miles doesn't result in weight loss; only dieting works. EG, I've ridden almost 10K miles in the last two years, and gained back 10 lbs in the process.

I've found the diet discipline is tougher than the training. I love to ride (most of the time anyway), but don't like to restrict my diet. Have no problem avoiding fat and heavy meats, but with all the riding, have developed a craving for carbs like fruits, bread, oatmeal, etc.

 

[frenchyge]

Agree with the posters that say it still gets back to diet, regardless of the intensity of training. My experience has been that riding big miles doesn't result in weight loss; only dieting works. EG, I've ridden almost 10K miles in the last two years, and gained back 10 lbs in the process.

I think it depends on the starting fitness of the individual. For a sedentary individual looking to lose weight through cycling, I'd suggest a more moderate intensity, longer duration approach similar to what you posted. For a trained cyclist, I suggest training at intensities appropriate for their cycling goals and just cutting back the calories slightly.

The reason for the difference? Because a cyclist in the middle of their training program is probably already burning *and eating* a few thousand more calories per week than the sedentary individual. I'd think it'd be easier for the cyclist to skim a few hundred cal per day through dietary substitution (ie, protein or fiber for *a portion* of their carb intake).

I don't have any experience here, but that's what seems to make sense to me.

 

[RickF]

Agree with the posters that say it still gets back to diet, regardless of the intensity of training. My experience has been that riding big miles doesn't result in weight loss; only dieting works. EG, I've ridden almost 10K miles in the last two years, and gained back 10 lbs in the process.

I've found the diet discipline is tougher than the training. I love to ride (most of the time anyway), but don't like to restrict my diet. Have no problem avoiding fat and heavy meats, but with all the riding, have developed a craving for carbs like fruits, bread, oatmeal, etc.

Exercise alone will not work if the diet is bad, but in your case, are you sure that a 10 pound weight gain over two years is not simply increased muscle mass from continuous training?

Diet alone will not work if you do no exercise. More muscle than fat is lost, and the body compensates for the reduced caloric intake by decreasing the metabolic rate.

It is all about balance. Weight and body mass index are poor indicators of fitness. A 220 pound, 6 foot body builder and a 220 pound, 6 foot couch potato have the same weight and body mass index, but the former is fit, and the later is obese. Do not obsess over weight alone, but strive for better fitness. Percent body fat would be a better indicator than weight, but that is difficult to measure accurately (measuring skin fold thickness is not at all reliable).

 

[Felt_Rider]

I also put my vote in for diet first.

Through the years I have seen multitudes of individuals that did not change their physical appearance because their nutritional intake.

Case in point was an aerobics teacher that confused me util the day the truth was revealed. I would see her instruct two or more aerobics classes back to back and I wondered how she still had a slightly chubby build. Until one day I was leaving the gym and I saw her with a McDonald's bag and she was stuffing her face.

She could easily burn the calories, but add back high calories with high fat content.

I see people in my group ride that I cannot keep up with, but they are better than 20% bodyfat. When we are done and I am taking in my post ride drink and nutrition they are talking about going to get beer and wings.

When I competed as a bodybuilder I quickly found out that getting down to 3 and 4 percent bodyfat was 90% nutritional intake for me and the rest was training. The average person thinks it would be 90% training and 10% diet. That is why you often see the question, "how do I train abdominals to get my abs to show?" The truth for most of us with average genetics is that the abs will begin to show once the diet is cleaned and cardio begins to take effect in combination of the clean diet.

Clean up the daily food intake, add some cardio and then you will begin to see a difference. The old method of eating 6 small meals a day is a very good method to keep from binge eating at the main meals.

 

[nordoff]

The old method of eating 6 small meals a day is a very good method to keep from binge eating at the main meals.

Something I'm wondering about myself is this.
I have a normal breakfast and evening meal but work nights.
Is it right that eating more regularly but healthy helps to lose weight quicker than just 3 normal meals?
I tend to mix my breaks at work between either fruit, yogurt, chicken or fish.

Cheers

Gav

PS hi.
Getting into cycling as I need to develop leg strength/stamina for a taichi tournament I'm entering.

 

[SolarEnergy]

Something I'm wondering about myself is this.
I have a normal breakfast and evening meal but work nights.
Is it right that eating more regularly but healthy helps to lose weight quicker than just 3 normal meals?
I tend to mix my breaks at work between either fruit, yogurt, chicken or fish.

Cheers

Gav

PS hi.
Getting into cycling as I need to develop leg strength/stamina for a taichi tournament I'm entering.

Calories ingested in a meal and not used immediately by tissues are converted to triglycerides and transported to fat cells to be stored.

The idea behind eating 6X a day, is that by eating less (on each meal), you have less risks to see large amounts of food being converted into fat.

As simple as that.

 

[Felt_Rider]

nordoff, I have been following this schedule for almost 20 years and I find it to be the best method of keeping your natural insulin levels normal or consistent without getting insulin spikes from eating 3 larger meals. People generally eat larger portions when they are limited to 3 or less meals.

Through the years I have helped consult individuals on this issue and it seems like the average American that I deal with will skip meals thinking they are doing themselves a favor, but what typically happens is they eat much larger portions at those limited meals. By breaking up the meals one can have micro & macro nutrients trickling into the system on a consistent basis rather than flood the system with one or two larger meals and much of the nutrients are wasted.

It is true that if you eat smaller evenly spaced (healthy) meals through out the day you will be less likely to binge eat or eat a high calorie low nutrient snack.


My intake today (applies to my personal goals)

5:00 am - slice of natural grain toast
5:30 am - train
7:00 am - post training drink (35gr whey protein, 2gr glutamine, 10 gr carbs from gatorade)
10:00 am - apple / whey protein
12:00 pm - 1/2 cup potato / 1/2 cup peas / baked turkey breast
3:00 pm - 1/2 cup potato / 1/2 cup peas / baked turkey breast
7:00 pm - similar to 12:00 (whatever the wifey makes which will be similar to lunch)
9:30 pm - cup of lowfat yogurt / sunflower seeds / bran cereal (mixed together)
10:00 bedtime (fasting: thus the word breakfast - it all starts again at 5:00 am)


Consider the small meals and see if it something worthy in your own daily program.

 

[Doctor Morbius]

Is it right that eating more regularly but healthy helps to lose weight quicker than just 3 normal meals?

Yes, that is correct. It is especially true for people with insulin sensitivity problems.