Fasted cycling.

dahat

Going to start this tomorrow but if i go beyond 90 mins should i take on a little fuel to get home?

De Bhál

dahat wrote: »

Going to start this tomorrow but if i go beyond 90 mins should i take on a little fuel to get home?

Well I guess that would make some sense

dahat

De Bhál wrote: »

Well I guess that would make some sense

But does it kill the point of the cycle fasted? Probably stupid questions but keen to start this to lose weight and train body to use fat.

De Bhál

dahat wrote: »

But does it kill the point of the cycle fasted? Probably stupid questions but keen to start this to lose weight and train body to use fat.

I would just go as far as you can then eat. Try for further the next time. I doubt you teach your body much cycling home at 10kmh with no energy.

dahat

De Bhál wrote: »

I would just go as far as you can then eat. Try for further the next time. I doubt you teach your body much cycling home at 10kmh with no energy.

Was likely to be a 2hr spin if possible.

Cookie_Monster

I had to google that to figure out that you didn't mean 'faster'...

Ideally keep fasted training sessions to around 60-90 minutes and of a moderate intensity (ideal for the ride to work). You will be able to exercise for slightly longer at a lower intensity, but your equivalent calorie burn will be similar and it will not have the same metabolic-stimulating effects.

lol, even two hours is never enough to bother eating personally.
Anything under 100km I rarely eat / stop unless it's a nice day for coffee and cake somewhere. I'm surprised its even a thing

doozerie

Just see how you go, I would suggest. If you feel hungry drink some water, that tends to keep the hunger at bay.

Hunger isn't a concern, of course, what you'll probably worry about is "the bonk". But I'd suggest that you don't worry about that too much either. If you bonk you'll slow down, you'll still get home it'll just take longer and be less comfortable. There is a lot of hype around bonking, it seems to have a reputation for being something to be avoided at all costs, but while bonking in a race means your race is done, bonking on a training ride isn't such a big deal as far as I am concerned.

If you start getting light-headed then that's the point when I'd have something to eat. And if so, I'd eat little but maybe every 15 minutes or so until I got home. I've never got to that stage though when doing fasted rides, you may find as I did that your body copes very well without a constant supply of food, there is certainly an amount of adjustment your body has to go through to more comfortably handle fasted rides but I reckon the biggest hurdle is mental, we are conditioned to almost fear hunger (by manufacturers of energy foods in particular).

Lumen

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

lol, even two hours is never enough to bother eating personally.
Anything under 100km I rarely eat / stop unless it's a nice day for coffee and cake somewhere. I'm surprised its even a thing

Fasted cycling means cycling without eating beforehand, like you would be before surgery or for a fasted blood test. Do you do 100km on an empty stomach?

Cookie_Monster

Lumen wrote: »

Fasted cycling means cycling without eating beforehand, like you would be before surgery or for a fasted blood test. Do you do 100km on an empty stomach?

bowl of cereal is about all i'd eat. Anything more and it just fell heavy and sick if pushing it.

how long are we talking about here, lunch at 12 straight out after work at 5 count?

nilhg

My idea of a fasted spin is to roll out of bed, up on the bike and do 30 to 40 km at a brisk to hard pace, then home, have breakfast and away for a normal day.

It's totally unscientific on my part but I always felt that it helps at this time of the year with losing a bit of weight, gets the fires burning early in the day so to speak, you feel better for the day anyway.

The concept of riding slowly fasted for a long time in the "fat burning zone" never really appealed to me, the thought of it horrifies me TBH, and I can't see much rationale behind it unless someone is preparing for an extreme distance unsupported spin/audax.

Pawlie

If you are wanting to burn fat as fuel you need to get on the bike straight after to wake up, either have a black coffee or glass of water before hand. Reason behind doing it the minute you wake up is due to your metabolism system not up and running, this helps with tricking your body into using fat for fuel.
If you are doing it on a turbo at home only ride on the bike for 30 minutes and gradually each week add on 10 mins, same goes for on the road but you can start at doing 1 hour long spins its easier on the road. You need to be riding in the aerobic zone to gain the benefits of this.
Do not ride at a higher intensity, you should not be sweating, if you are sweating you are only dehydrating yourself and you are loosing fluids and nothing more, you should feel like you are able to have a full blown conversation with someone if needed, no different if you were sitting down chatting. If you are riding too hard you will be burning carbs and because you have not had anything to eat you will start eating into your muscles and this will do more harm.
The huge benefits for lads that race is that the better they train their body to use fat for fuel the more carbs they can store for when the body needs to switch fuel source when intensity is upped and the same goes for when intensity drops, even if its for 2 mins the body will automatically switch to fat and not continue to waste or damage your Glycogen levels. The more trained your body is at using fat for fuel the more efficient you become on the bike and gradually you will be able to ride at a longer and higher intensity while using fat to fuel yourself.

Its one of the best ways naturally to burn fat and have your body become more efficient in any walk of life. One of my work colleagues that does Mau Thai does this every 2nd morning and he lost vast amounts of fat and it did not drain the life out of him, he has noticed too that while sparring he can do it for longer and feels a lot stronger during and after sessions. Like wise my brother inlaw started after xmas, he has no sporting background, just wanted to loose weight and was stuck for time as he is self employed and always in the car or sitting in office, he does 30 mins every 2nd morn on turbo straight after he wakes up and he has again he lost 10kgs since Jan, and again doing it right he does not feel drained or tired etc after it.

I have studied this while doing a degree in sports performance and did implement this into my own training from Sept last year, when tested in the lab it was exciting to actually see the correlation of how long my body used fat for fuel to when it then crossed over to carbs in relation to the power and heart rate zones.

dragratchet

started fasted turbo sessions in the morning before work recently. out of bed, hammer a coffee and do an hour of moderately paced spinning on trainer road. between 20-30 mins i feel fairly weary and hungry, after that things pick up and id be confident of doing a lot more than an hour if i didn't have to go to work. its had a positive effect on my training on the road, spins i previously would have relied on food to get through, i've halved my intake of calories for the same degree of exertion.

smacl

Pawlie wrote: »

If you are wanting to burn fat as fuel you need to get on the bike straight after to wake up, either have a black coffee or glass of water before hand. Reason behind doing it the minute you wake up is due to your metabolism system not up and running, this helps with tricking your body into using fat for fuel.

Interesting. During the winter, I tend to get up and start work early to free time for 60-90 mins of cycling at lunch. From the sounds of this I'd be better off starting with the cycle in the morning (couldn't see myself doing early morning turbo).

NiallBoo

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

bowl of cereal is about all i'd eat. Anything more and it just fell heavy and sick if pushing it.

how long are we talking about here, lunch at 12 straight out after work at 5 count?

It really depends on what you're eating the rest of the time.
If you're on a normal diet then you'll be able to cover 100km on glycogen stores but if you're already restricting calories then the stores will be lower and you'll struggle.

Plus of course that if you're overweight you're probably going to use a lot more calories over that 100km.

koutoubia

I was of the understanding that in order to be fully fasted its 10- 12 hours without food and then heart rate instensity of ideally Z2 or early Z3 max for at least 90 mins.

Enduro

Remember that training for fat adaption takes time, just like all other aspects of training. Gains will take months to manifest themselves, at least. Again, just like any other training you need to stress to adapt. No pain no gain. Bonking is not a bad thing in that context.

Carrying a small bar or similar to get you home post-bonk isn't a bad idea. Just try not to use it unless you truely need it.

ford2600

Enduro wrote: »

Remember that training for fat adaption takes time, just like all other aspects of training. Gains will take months to manifest themselves, at least. Again, just like any other training you need to stress to adapt. No pain no gain. Bonking is not a bad thing in that context.

Carrying a small bar or similar to get you home post-bonk isn't a bad idea. Just try not to use it unless you truely need it.

What would you know about it...

What did you ever do on little food :eek: other than winning a 268 mile mountain run in under 4 days..(it'd be a grand 10 day walk... in summer:))

OP if you want to lose weight, focusing on just fasted training, without altering things that really matter (diet, sleep, stress, exercise type) is majoring in the minors. I don't think your cycling that long and imo focusing on fasted cycling isn't the best thing to be focusing on (you seem to be flying BTW so I wouldn't be changing too much about what your doing on bike tbh.

Fasted cycling will force your body to adapt to chose fat as a fuel source more; it does that already (all day every day) but you can change the proportion of energy makeup between fat and glycogen (there are other fuel source e.g. lactate but the main fuel are fat and glycogen). So on a long ride you'll need to eat less as fat is being used more. As Enduro says it'll take time.

However mobilising fat for use isn't the same as dropping fat. If you change nothing else I can't see there being a big reduction in bodyfat levels.

In the morning is the best time to do it from a convenience point of view but you don't have to run to the bike. I'm a pretty average rider and as an example did the following in July (at which stage I'm almost 2 years playing around with this so bear that in mind); 3.15am start, coffee, 2h15min drive, sign on, 6am start, 85km with 5 others, broken spoke, fcuk fcuk fcuk, uturn, cycle back to car solo. 170km total at 26km ish. My breakfast was two apples driving past Naas on way home. Just to point out there are no hard and fast rules, go figure out what works for you

To adapt try a few sedentary morning fasted, then short spins etc. Bring something with you while you adapt

The biggest advantage to someone cycling primarily for health is allowing you to chose when to eat and therby what to eat; a fruit salad with seeds and yoghurt, eggs with veg and potatoes etc rather than some overpriced junk in a wrapper which will probably make it more likely you eat such junk when not exercising.

As for food on bike, the apple is King. Bananas cook and destroy jerseys, I've had apples in Jersey for 200km and eaten them when I got home:)

BTW fcuk ya, I'm here with reports to get out while your probably cycling up the Vee on nicest morning of the year!!

dahat

Just back and here is how i did.

Woke up, dressed black coffe and on within 25mins, no food.

I did 2hrs with a distance of approx 50km which felt handy for me, i don't have a HR strap so judged it on feel. I'm trying to lose 10-15kgs off my 111kg bulk so hopefully this helps.

Beans on toast when i got home after a cool down of sorts.

Thanks for the replies/advice, some good info posted.

jive

dahat wrote: »

Just back and here is how i did.

Woke up, dressed black coffe and on within 25mins, no food.

I did 2hrs with a distance of approx 50km which felt handy for me, i don't have a HR strap so judged it on feel. I'm trying to lose 10-15kgs off my 111kg bulk so hopefully this helps.

Beans on toast when i got home after a cool down of sorts.

Thanks for the replies/advice, some good info posted.

Fasted or unfasted cycling in the morning won't make a difference. If you want to lose weight then it's all about calories burned vs calories consumed.

Cycle 50km a day, eat a healthy diet and you'll be laughing.

dahat

jive wrote: »

Fasted or unfasted cycling in the morning won't make a difference. If you want to lose weight then it's all about calories burned vs calories consumed.

Cycle 50km a day, eat a healthy diet and you'll be laughing.

Posts above tend to prove otherwise but essentially yes you are correct but dont have the time to do 50km a day so gotta think of other methods.

Fasted exercise worked for me when i could run so just needed to adapt that to cycling.

dragratchet

jive wrote: »

Fasted or unfasted cycling in the morning won't make a difference. If you want to lose weight then it's all about calories burned vs calories consumed.

your post is contradictory, to engage in exercise whilst in a fasted state is a way of burning more calories than you are consuming.

fwiw, i know everyone is different but it is making a difference for me and id imagine most people if they do it consistently along with a balanced diet.

jive

dragratchet wrote: »

your post is contradictory, to engage in exercise whilst in a fasted state is a way of burning more calories than you are consuming.

fwiw, i know everyone is different but it is making a difference for me and id imagine most people if they do it consistently along with a balanced diet.

My post isn't contradictory nor does exercising in a fasted state burn more calories. A calorie is a unit of energy, cycling 1km on an empty stomach will require the same energy as cycling 1km on a full stomach (in fact, cycling on a full stomach probably burns more calories as you're carrying more weight ).

It's a simple case of calories in vs. calories out for weight loss. It doesn't matter when you eat the calories.

jive

dahat wrote: »

Posts above tend to prove otherwise but essentially yes you are correct but dont have the time to do 50km a day so gotta think of other methods.

Fasted exercise worked for me when i could run so just needed to adapt that to cycling.

Any exercise coupled with a small calorie deficit will lead to weight loss. There's so many fitness myths it's ridiculous.

Exercise on an empty stomach won't 'stoke the fat burning fire' or 'super mega turbo charge your metabolism'. It's fine and dandy, but after enough exercise you'll start feeling lethargic and it's counter-productive. This is coming from someone who commutes on an empty stomach, in case anyone thinks I'm staunchly against exercising before food; I'm not, it just doesn't make any difference.

If you enjoy exercising on an empty stomach then great, exercise away; but don't suffer through it because you think it's better. Don't sweat the minor details of nutrient timing unless you're a competitive athlete geared for performance, for body composition concerns then just exercise regularly and eat a healthy diet.

pgibbo

Pawlie wrote: »

If you are wanting to burn fat as fuel you need to get on the bike straight after to wake up, either have a black coffee or glass of water before hand. Reason behind doing it the minute you wake up is due to your metabolism system not up and running, this helps with tricking your body into using fat for fuel.
If you are doing it on a turbo at home only ride on the bike for 30 minutes and gradually each week add on 10 mins, same goes for on the road but you can start at doing 1 hour long spins its easier on the road. You need to be riding in the aerobic zone to gain the benefits of this.
Do not ride at a higher intensity, you should not be sweating, if you are sweating you are only dehydrating yourself and you are loosing fluids and nothing more, you should feel like you are able to have a full blown conversation with someone if needed, no different if you were sitting down chatting. If you are riding too hard you will be burning carbs and because you have not had anything to eat you will start eating into your muscles and this will do more harm.
The huge benefits for lads that race is that the better they train their body to use fat for fuel the more carbs they can store for when the body needs to switch fuel source when intensity is upped and the same goes for when intensity drops, even if its for 2 mins the body will automatically switch to fat and not continue to waste or damage your Glycogen levels. The more trained your body is at using fat for fuel the more efficient you become on the bike and gradually you will be able to ride at a longer and higher intensity while using fat to fuel yourself.

Its one of the best ways naturally to burn fat and have your body become more efficient in any walk of life. One of my work colleagues that does Mau Thai does this every 2nd morning and he lost vast amounts of fat and it did not drain the life out of him, he has noticed too that while sparring he can do it for longer and feels a lot stronger during and after sessions. Like wise my brother inlaw started after xmas, he has no sporting background, just wanted to loose weight and was stuck for time as he is self employed and always in the car or sitting in office, he does 30 mins every 2nd morn on turbo straight after he wakes up and he has again he lost 10kgs since Jan, and again doing it right he does not feel drained or tired etc after it.

I have studied this while doing a degree in sports performance and did implement this into my own training from Sept last year, when tested in the lab it was exciting to actually see the correlation of how long my body used fat for fuel to when it then crossed over to carbs in relation to the power and heart rate zones.

Are there negatives to starting after an elapsed period of time? I often get up at 7 and have a glass of water. It's often 9 before I get to swim or run whilst still fasted. Is this not advisable?

For some reason if it's a morning I'm biking and it's going to be longer than an hour before starting training whilst fasted I always have a breakfast before the spin. Not sure why I do that for the bike and not other sessions. Obviously these sessions are no longer considered to be started in a fasted state.

Cheers.

P

Enduro

jive wrote: »

Exercise on an empty stomach won't 'stoke the fat burning fire' .

Actually it will contribute to it, and over time will make you into a more efficient fat burner. And as a result...

jive wrote: »

It's fine and dandy, but after enough exercise you'll start feeling lethargic and it's counter-productive.

... this will happen less and less. To the point where it will be possible to exercise for many hours without starting to feel lethargic.

What you describe is the classic example of someone rapidly running down their glycogen stores.

jive wrote: »

This is coming from someone who commutes on an empty stomach, in case anyone thinks I'm staunchly against exercising before food; I'm not, it just doesn't make any difference.

Maybe it doesn't in your case (for which there are many possible reasons). But there are plenty of examples where it does make a difference. My own experience shows that it does make a difference.

jive wrote: »

If you enjoy exercising on an empty stomach then great, exercise away; but don't suffer through it because you think it's better. Don't sweat the minor details of nutrient timing unless you're a competitive athlete geared for performance, for body composition concerns then just exercise regularly and eat a healthy diet.

Some recent studies suggest that there are potential health benifits, including weight loss, to intermittant fasting, regardless of any sports/preformance related benifits.

Enduro

pgibbo wrote: »

Are there negatives to starting after an elapsed period of time? I often get up at 7 and have a glass of water. It's often 9 before I get to swim or run whilst still fasted. Is this not advisable?

I'm not aware of any downsides to this... just extends the fasted period really.

pgibbo

Enduro wrote: »

I'm not aware of any downsides to this... just extends the fasted period really.

Cheers. I have a recollection of Barry Murray mentioning there were some potential negatives previously but I never had a chance to get more info at the time. It was a couple of years ago and the original post I quoted triggered the memory.

jive

Enduro wrote: »

Actually it will contribute to it, and over time will make you into a more efficient fat burner. And as a result...



... this will happen less and less. To the point where it will be possible to exercise for many hours without starting to feel lethargic.

What you describe is the classic example of someone rapidly running down their glycogen stores.



Maybe it doesn't in your case (for which there are many possible reasons). But there are plenty of examples where it does make a difference. My own experience shows that it does make a difference.



Some recent studies suggest that there are potential health benifits, including weight loss, to intermittant fasting, regardless of any sports/preformance related benifits.

All nonsense. Link a reputable study which shows you become a more efficient fat burner. Intermittent fasting is a completely different thing to fasted cardio first thing in the morning, btw.

ford2600

jive wrote: »

All nonsense. Link a reputable study which shows you become a more efficient fat burner. Intermittent fasting is a completely different thing to fasted cardio first thing in the morning, btw.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253005/

jive

ford2600 wrote: »

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3253005/

N=20 (incl control group) and over 6 weeks, hardly reputable.

brownian

There's no issue of reputation. KU Leuven are a well respected university. You may mean that the cohort size isn't large enough to produce results that are statistically significant, or that the length of the intervention is too short (though there's no inherent issue with long-duration vs short-duration interventions, to my knowledge). However, the results seem pretty reasonable...the p-value of the interesting stuff is below the 0.05, which is (generally, I make no special claims) treated as the indication that a result is 'significant'.

Getting fit young men to do this sort of study isn't all that difficult - recruitment is simple, compared to (say) finding patients with the right neurological disease to test your new drug on. I imagine (and yes, just that) that the Belgians could easily have had n=100, but that their statistician and study designer decided that they'd get good enough results with n=20. The point I'm making is that, probably, n=20 not because they're not bothered, nor (as is often the case) that recruitment would be difficult, but (more likely) that they decided n=20 was enough to get the data they expected.

Incidentally, the fasting period was pretty long for these guys - about 12 hours.