Fasted cycling.

C3PO

jive wrote: »

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

Just not true ... but we've already had this topic on another thread this week so I won't start it again!

ford2600

http://sigmanutrition.com/episode86/

Episode 57 is also on topic

Lennon and MacDonald aren't exactly quacks

Pawlie

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?

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

The reason you exercise as soon as you wake up is due to your system is still asleep and not awake fully, this makes it easier to trick and train your body to use fat as a fuel source quicker. Waiting an hour or two after you wake up can be done but it will take longer to trick your body to using fat for fuel as your system is well awake by then and in its usually routine.

Pawlie

Enduro wrote: »

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

Couldnt agree more, people training in fasted states need to start slowly in intensity and duration, making sure they reap the full rewards, then and only then does intensity and duration rise but rise gradually.

Dazguy2000

Got what it's worth I've been using fasted cycles and found them very beneficial in both weight loss and improving my use of fat as an energy source.

jive

brownian wrote: »

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.

Reputable doesn't mean I was calling into question whoever conducted the study, I was questioning the study itself so what I said was correct. N=20 is a joke and you applying a sample size of 10 people who responded well across the entire population of the world is laughable.

We'll have to agree to disagree because in all my days I haven't seen anything in practice or in adequate studies that suggest otherwise. Each to their own.

jive

C3PO wrote: »

Just not true ... but we've already had this topic on another thread this week so I won't start it again!

It is true to an extent assuming you're adequate nutrition onboard. For the vast majority of people it's a matter of calories in vs out, within reason all other factors will be negligible. I agree that it's not everything for the sake of argument but it is definitely an adequate system to lose weight for your average Joe.

outfox

Question for Enduro, Pawlie, Ford 2600, etc.:
Do you think a 30 min session on the turbo every morning before breakfast would be beneficial, with respect to improving fat burning? Or would you recommend fewer, but longer, sessions?
I've glanced through that Van Proeyen et al paper, but I don't think it draws conclusions regarding frequency or duration of fasted sessions.

jive

ford2600 wrote: »

http://sigmanutrition.com/episode86/

Episode 57 is also on topic

Lennon and MacDonald aren't exactly quacks

http://www.the42.ie/danny-lennon-blog-cardio-in-a-fasted-state-2557264-Jan2016/?utm_source=twitter_self

Authored by the founder of sigma nutrition himself.

No point in dragging this out anyway as we have different opinions, if people feel it works for them then rock on. As long as you're getting off your red rum every day you're doing well.

ford2600

jive wrote: »

http://www.the42.ie/danny-lennon-blog-cardio-in-a-fasted-state-2557264-Jan2016/?utm_source=twitter_self

Authored by the founder of sigma nutrition himself.

No point in dragging this out anyway as we have different opinions, if people feel it works for them then rock on. As long as you're getting off your red rum every day you're doing well.

Read my original post.

Unlikely to help with fat loss if important factors which control fat loss don't change BUT fasted training can have a dramatic change to fat metabolism/efficiency.

Cookie_Monster

nilhg wrote: »

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.

does that not defeat the purpose as you are in cardio heart zone rather than fat burning and hence likely to start burning muscle as fuel rather than just fat?

surely for this to work you need to be at a low intensity level

edit: addressed in later posts

Pawlie

outfox wrote: »

Question for Enduro, Pawlie, Ford 2600, etc.:
Do you think a 30 min session on the turbo every morning before breakfast would be beneficial, with respect to improving fat burning? Or would you recommend fewer, but longer, sessions?
I've glanced through that Van Proeyen et al paper, but I don't think it draws conclusions regarding frequency or duration of fasted sessions.

Personally I prefered getting up at 5.30 every morn and doing 30 mins at start and leading to an hour in duration, it was hugely benificial for me and helped me become alot more efficient on the bike with regards using fat for fuel, and been able to put in 4-5 hours on bike while just fueled on water and a banana or 2 at mocy, then maybe a coffee at the 4 hour mark if aiming for 5 hours depending on training schedule.

Like I said before I have studied this while in college doing Sports Performance, Ive done the lab tests and know the results I got.
For lads to say fasting while exercising in low intensity does'nt burn fat is funny. I've studied many a research paper that has been peer reviewed and am safe in saying I do have a fair amount of knowledge on the matter.

Carawaystick

jive wrote: »

As long as you're getting off your red rum every day you're doing well.

Ah Here!
I don't mind heading out without breakfast, but having to stand up instead of sitting, that's a bridge too far.

I have a couple of gels in behind the second tube in my saddle bag in case I get the bad knock-- which can be bad, I couldn't cycle up the hill by Wavin in Balbriggan without stopping one time.

Now I can feel it a bit better, and slack off before it hits bad.

NiallBoo

I really think there are two different (but somewhat related) questions here which should really be treated separately.

A: fat burning with the goal of reducing body-fat long-term. (OPs main goal I think? )

B: Alerting fat-burning ratio for improved performance.


B will be directly addressed with fasted cycling.

For A, fasted cycling could be of benefit but will ultimately be secondary to maintaining a calorie deficit.
If it works for you then keep doing it - shedding fat isn't all about doing the most efficient thing, it's about doing what you can consistently will yourself to do over the course of several months.
(Speaking from personal experience on the last bit)

dahat

A is my primary aim indeed.

A fasted spin once or twice a week is something i can maintain without too much hassle. As i like to power on in my spins i was after a method to aid fat loss/burning. These fasted spins will also be used a slower recovery spins as well.

Pawlie

dahat wrote: »

A is my primary aim indeed.

A fasted spin once or twice a week is something i can maintain without too much hassle. As i like to power on in my spins i was after a method to aid fat loss/burning. These fasted spins will also be used a slower recovery spins as well.

A fasted spin or two will work for you no matter what you want to get from it, whether its a lifestyle or performance gain you want to achieve. The sooner you trick your body into using fat for primary fuel source the better, and training at a very low intensity (brisk walk or cycle) will do this quicker than anything else I have studied.

The amount of people that burn carbs while doing something as easy as walking is very high, and its needless. When your system has changed fuel source it will then use fat for general fuel use, such as walking and other day to day actions, this again helps with actually loosing weight while you wont even notice your doing it.

You also need to understand that when your body is using fat for fuel you need to have a good healthy diet to match the needs of your body, such as eating the right amounts of good healthy fats, along with good carbs.

bbolger

From a British Cycling website article: Using your commute as training

Morning carbohydrate fasted commute
If your commute is typically between 30-60 minutes in duration, riding carbohydrate fasted is an excellent way to develop riding economy, enhance your body’s ability to burn fat as a fuel and facilitate weight maintenance or loss. Do not eat any food before setting off on your ride but you may have some water or a black tea or coffee. In your bottle on the bike you can have a protein drink to sip during the ride. This won’t impact the benefits of the session, but will help you recover quicker from it. It is essential that the entire ride is in Zones 1-2. With low blood sugar levels you will not be able to sustain any harder efforts and, if you attempt to, you will not get the benefits from the ride and will probably come to a grinding halt. When you first start attempting this session, ride primarily in Zone 1 but, as your body adapts, try to ride at least 50% of it in Zone 2. Make sure you have your breakfast available to eat immediately when you get to work as you will feel very hungry.

Some other great tips throughout that article that I've found useful.

dahat

How does one calculate zones without a HR device or strap?

bbolger

dahat wrote: »

How does one calculate zones without a HR device or strap?

You could use a rate of perceived exertion (RPE) as a rough guide, i.e. you go by feel. HR monitors are pretty good value these days though.

Snippet below taken from the BC site: Understanding Intensity.

1: Active recovery
Very easy, just turning the legs over and there should be no sense of burning or fatigue.

2: Endurance
Steady ride all day pace that’s the bread and butter of successful sportives and forms the endurance base that supports higher end efforts for racers. It should feel comfortable, you would still be able to maintain a full conversation, but it is purposeful and, especially towards the upper end of this zone, you would have to start concentrating to maintain it.

3: Tempo
Tempo is also known as intensive endurance and, as such, is a determined and purposeful effort that you can, with concentration, maintain. There’s a definite sense of effort, conversation would be in shorter sentences and fatigue will gradually build up in your legs.

4: Threshold
If you have conducted the functional threshold test, you will know exactly what this zone feels like. It is tough to maintain as you are hovering near to your limit but is just sustainable. Conversation will be very brief and, especially at the upper end of this zone, a burning sensation in your legs will definitely be noticeable. Theoretically this zone should be sustainable for 60 minutes and although experienced well trained riders should be able to manage this, novices will definitely need to build up to this.

5: VO2 max
Pushing very hard, requiring high levels of effort and focus with little or scope for communication. Breathing feels extremely hard and your legs will start burning very quickly at this intensity.

6: Anaerobic Capacity
A 100% sprint involving maximal effort. A heart rate zone is not prescribed for these efforts as the rise in heart rate will significantly lag behind the effort.

Pawlie

Best and easiest way in knowing how easy you are riding is that you should be able to have a full blown conversation with a person beside you without breathing heavenly or gasping for air. I you are just cycling leisurely I would recommend a cheap HRM and device to sync with. Rule thump then to get max HR IS 220-age, this is set in stone as some will have higher max's when tested, I for one am 6 beats higher at max than what that formula gives, but it is a good start for a leisure cyclist.

Getting zones is easy then just go google heart rate zones cycling.
So say you are 35 yrs old, 220-35=175bpm max hr.
Zones would be as follows.....
Z1 115-125BMP
Z2 125-144BPM
Z3 144-157BPM
Z4 157-171BPM
Z5 171-180BPM
Z6 180-192BPM

You would need to stay in zone 1 while on a fat burning spin, if planning a fat burning spin do plan a flat route, as it is preferable that you dont creep into zone 2.

ford2600

bbolger wrote: »

From a British Cycling website article: Using your commute as training



Some other great tips throughout that article that I've found useful.

I'm not sure about this zone 1 and zone 2 business.

First off I'm just an average club rider, packfill in A4 if I bothered racing I would think. If you want to see what a real athlete can do on fat look here

http://www.samiinkinen.com/

He attributes much of his adaptation to diet however, but 300W at 50% fat is mental.

I don't use a hr monitor much, I generally ride to feel be it pace, food or water, but I checked one longish ride I did in June. It was intended to be a 300km but knee trouble meant limping for last 30km (including Mullangnish:eek:) and cutting short at 210km.

210km, 2100m climbing 25km/h, fasted start, 2 apples and few nuts at 120km and bowl of chowder at 175km.
My tested max hr is 180 with resting usually either side of 50. My average hr for day was 137(76%max) with a few 30-50 minute sections with hr between 140-160. That is nearly entirely Z3 with periods in low z4.

I didn't get there riding around in zone 1 feeling cold! Adapting your body involves discomfort, I can't see much adaptation doing easy sh1t.

Probably my strongest ride last year was a 390km 2,500m at 28km/h from Dublin to Waterford via Cavan; first 100km with a group of 10ish followed by the next 290km with one other. Fasted start, apple at 100km, meatty sandwich, 2 apples at 190km, sandwich and pink snack at 320kmish. I don't know my hr data but I'd bet my bottom dollar from similar exertions it was z3 primarily.

Obviously this is only relevant for Category B!!

As an aside I rode with group on M2M last year over 2 days, the guys in best shape rolling into Malin where those who were to some degree fat adapted; not from eating like a lunatic like me or crazy depleted rides but just from ignoring gels/bars and all that sh1te and eating real food.

The lads sucking energy drinks heading through west Cork saw a few toilets before Athlone and were definitely in the worst shape of group when we finished;as 300km rides go, this thing was luxury flatish with a support van not exactly Tom Crean crossing South Georgia Island!

@Outfox I don't know if 30mins on turbo will do much, I haven't tried it or seen any research on it. Most of my fasted rides are 4hrs this time of year so I'm not in a position to say.

Pawlie

ford2600 wrote: »

@Outfox I don't know if 30mins on turbo will do much, I haven't tried it or seen any research on it. Most of my fasted rides are 4hrs this time of year so I'm not in a position to say.

A beginner starting of with 30mins on turbo is ideal, the 1st 30 minutes after you wake up is where most the adaptions occur, then gradually you start to add time to it as your body gets used to what you are asking it to do.

You don't just bull in and say im going to do and hour or 2 fasting, whether you know it or not you are going to do more damage to yourself and muscle

ford2600

Pawlie wrote: »

A beginner starting of with 30mins on turbo is ideal, the 1st 30 minutes after you wake up is where most the adaptions occur, then gradually you start to add time to it as your body gets used to what you are asking it to do.

You don't just bull in and say im going to do and hour or 2 fasting, whether you know it or not you are going to do more damage to yourself and muscle

My first ride fasted was 1h 30mins in hilly terrain. Within 4 weeks I was doing 100km with 900m climbing completely fasted; what harm have I done myself?

Pawlie

ford2600 wrote: »

My first ride fasted was 1h 30mins in hilly terrain. Within 4 weeks I was doing 100km with 900m climbing completely fasted; what harm have I done myself?

Was that the 1st time you rode for 1 1/5 hours regardless of fasting?

ford2600

Pawlie wrote: »

Was that the 1st time you rode for 1 1/5 hours regardless of fasting?

No but outfox (who's question I was answering)isn't a begineer insofar as I know.

Enduro

Just butting in to agree with ford2600's point that you gotta stress to adapt. No pain no gain. Not much training gains in moving around in complete serene comfort all the time! I would also be a proponent of pushing out the envelope rather than staying withing prescribed limits. All personal opinion!

Pawlie

Enduro wrote: »

Just butting in to agree with ford2600's point that you gotta stress to adapt. No pain no gain. Not much training gains in moving around in complete serene comfort all the time! I would also be a proponent of pushing out the envelope rather than staying withing prescribed limits. All personal opinion!

Each to their own, and everyone has an opinion and that's great, its great people are interested in it, and this is my educated one from studying it and implementing it into my training.

Would you rather do it gradually with no pain and plenty of gains.
Its no different to when you want to start training in say endurance zone, you just don't start doing 3 hours in your top end of that zone, you start from the bottom of the zone and build it up, you gradually add distance and intensity, same goes for if you doing tempo training, you dont start doing them at higher level you start at the bottom.
This way you are adapting to each step up and the progression, your body is then ready for the next phase and is better shapeD to handle the longer and harder intensity's. Its not a case of going out and saying no pain no gain.

I don't think I once stated that a person stays in twiddling along mode while out on bike fasting. They do at first so that your system adapts without you feeling flogged, and gradually the distance and hours without food goes up.

Its all about building blocks and doing it right, you wont build a house if you skip the foundation part of the build.

Enduro

Pawlie wrote: »

Each to their own, and everyone has an opinion and that's great, its great people are interested in it, and this is my educated one from studying it and implementing it into my training.

Would you rather do it gradually with no pain and plenty of gains.
Its no different to when you want to start training in say endurance zone, you just don't start doing 3 hours in your top end of that zone, you start from the bottom of the zone and build it up, you gradually add distance and intensity, same goes for if you doing tempo training, you dont start doing them at higher level you start at the bottom.
This way you are adapting to each step up and the progression, your body is then ready for the next phase and is better shapeD to handle the longer and harder intensity's. Its not a case of going out and saying no pain no gain.

I don't think I once stated that a person stays in twiddling along mode while out on bike fasting. They do at first so that your system adapts without you feeling flogged, and gradually the distance and hours without food goes up.

Its all about building blocks and doing it right, you wont build a house if you skip the foundation part of the build.

As I say, all personal opinion on my part and no more. My general style is to ignore what I'm told my limits should be and go out and push to find them for myself. From there I try gradually push them out, as you say. But If I find myself getting comfortable then I know it's time to push out again! I do my training by rough time and feel, rather than by distance and HR etc. Getting that feel for effort (without needing a HRM) is a very valuable attribute to have for endurance racing.

Plastik

FWIW, 220-age as a method for calculating your max HR is vastly outdated. It just about gives you a very general rule of thumb way of looking at it, similar to how the BMI scale works for 'healthy weight'. If you want to train accurately using HR as the metric then you need to do something like the Joe Friel protocol LTHR test and work out your actual HR zones accordingly.

dragratchet

Plastik wrote: »

FWIW, 220-age as a method for calculating your max HR is vastly outdated. It just about gives you a very general rule of thumb way of looking at i

true, this is the background to the most quoted equation in sports physiology......

In preparation for a medical meeting , Dr. Haskell culled data from about 10 published studies in which people of different ages had been tested to find their maximum heart rates.
The subjects were never meant to be a representative sample of the population, said Dr. Haskell, who is now a professor of medicine at Stanford. Most were under 55 and some were smokers or had heart disease.
On an airplane traveling to the meeting, Dr. Haskell pulled out his data and showed them to Dr. Fox. ''We drew a line through the points and I said, 'Gee, if you extrapolate that out it looks like at age 20, the heart rate maximum is 200 and at age 40 it's 180 and at age 60 it's 160,'' Dr. Haskell said.
At that point, Dr. Fox suggested a formula: maximum heart rate equals 220 minus age.
But, exercise physiologists said, these data, like virtually all exercise data, had limitations. They relied on volunteers who most likely were not representative of the general population. ''It's whoever came in the door,'' Dr. Kirkendall said.

from http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/health/maximum-heart-rate-theory-is-challenged.html?pagewanted=all