Eating carbs in-ride and weight loss

[yello]

One of the tips that Cycle Active mentioned (and something I've been doing for years) is to ride before breakfast. They only suggest an hour - though I'll do nearer 90 minutes, sometimes 2 hours - because you are riding on empty. No need to ride hard, and don't take food, just water.

 

[lukesdad]

If it's not burned directly to build/repair muscle fibre/for energy a process called "gluconeogenisis" happens,this process turns protein into glucose.

The human kidneys are very efficient at preventing protein loss through urination,it's as much as myth as unicorns.

Ooops missed out the middleman. (glucose)

 

[lukesdad]

If Im getting you right yello (and Im not sure I am) you are promoting fuelling a ride primarily from fat ?

 

[MacB]

One of the tips that Cycle Active mentioned (and something I've been doing for years) is to ride before breakfast. They only suggest an hour - though I'll do nearer 90 minutes, sometimes 2 hours - because you are riding on empty. No need to ride hard, and don't take food, just water.

As I posted elsewhere this is what I found when I was doing the 20 mile commute. Ride in no problem and eat after arrival. Whereas ride home got uncomfortable, though not bonking, unless I ate about half an hour before I left, especially later in the week.

I still find up to 2 hours is about my max without fuel and I prefer not to go beyond 90 minutes. But I'm happy to do a longer ride and start nibbling after 90 mins, rather than pre-loading before I set off. For really long rides, 80 miles plus for me, then I'd aim for pasta the night before and then follow the same routine. It's not scientific or anything and I'll alter it as I need to but that's been about my best approach so far.

 

[MattHB]

One of the tips that Cycle Active mentioned (and something I've been doing for years) is to ride before breakfast. They only suggest an hour - though I'll do nearer 90 minutes, sometimes 2 hours - because you are riding on empty. No need to ride hard, and don't take food, just water.

I'm hoping as mornings get lighter to be able to put in a pre work ride. This'll help get my milleage up. I'm so useless with no breakfast though it'll be a struggle to go out empty!

 

[yello]

It's not scientific or anything and I'll alter it as I need to but that's been about my best approach so far.

Personally, I think that's the way to go - find what works for you.

I've read a fair bit on the subject of diet and nutrition (particularly for endurance events) but I put very little of it into practice! Well, not specifically and religiously anyway. I am however influenced by some of it and incorporate aspects (and the general sense of it all) into my approach.

And whilst obviously I'm going to be an advocate for my approach, I'd never say it's right nor the only way. Inherent in my belief is that we are all quite different, perhaps more so than we realise - even at a base biochemical level. So naturally I feel trial and error is sometimes necessary to find what works for you.

 

[lulubel]

However, I would contest the notion that "a calorie is a calorie" (outside of the obvious tautology that is!). Personally, I feel the whole idea of calorific value of any foodstuff is misleading if we're to use the same terminology/unit to describe energy burn as well. It's comparing apples to oranges.

No, it isn't. A calorie is an official measurement of energy, in the same way as a mile is a measurement of length, or a gram is a measurement of weight. There are not different types of measurement for different types of energy. They're all measured in calories (or the metric alternative). Our bodies accept their energy input in the form of chemical energy (in food) and it is output in a variety different ways, but it's still all energy and is measured in calories.

 

[lulubel]

I was commenting on the idea that we can change body function ('black box' processes) with specific regard to burning fat in preference to carb. I didn't suggest that burning one and not the other would lead to greater or lesser weight loss.

Sorry, I missed this part from my first quote. Since the thread was asking about weight loss, that's specifically what I've been addressing in my posts.

And whilst obviously I'm going to be an advocate for my approach, I'd never say it's right nor the only way. Inherent in my belief is that we are all quite different, perhaps more so than we realise - even at a base biochemical level. So naturally I feel trial and error is sometimes necessary to find what works for you.

This, I totally agree with. As long as you make a few basic generalisations that seem to apply to pretty much everyone (eat more than you need and you get fat, etc) there's a lot of variation in what works for different people.

 

[yello]

A calorie is an official measurement of energy, in the same way as a mile is a measurement of length, or a gram is a measurement of weight. There are not different types of measurement for different types of energy. They're all measured in calories (or the metric alternative).

Yes, they are called the same thing but they do not measure the same thing, and I think that causes confusion.

For example, you can measure the calorific value of anything (wood, petrol) but that hardly means they'll produce that same calorific value as energy output in the human body.

Or stated t'other way - I can light a slice of bread but it'll hardly keep me warm. Or stick it in the fuel tank of my car and go nowhere. It's context related. Do you see the point?

So how does one measure the energy in a slice of bread? It's an abstract concept.

Since the thread was asking about weight loss

Not entirely. It was also about trying to change from burning carb to burning fat...

this is the very crux of what Im on about

 

[yello]

If Im getting you right yello (and Im not sure I am) you are promoting fuelling a ride primarily from fat ?

Sorry ld, I missed this. I have to be careful how I answer this since it appears to be as divisive as helmets or mp3 players

I'm not promoting it as such. What people do is their own call.

However, I've read in many places that it is possible to coach your body to burn fat in preference to carb and it is something (as an idea) that interests me. At lower intensity levels, I think it is indeed possible and I think I do it. The problem comes at higher levels of effort - and I mentioned upstream the need to compromise on this one. That said, it appears to be possible to push the line between the two a little though, which is what the piece on interluekin-6 suggests. That is, to train your muscles to perform at a higher intensity on mainly fat stores.

 

[yello]

So how does one measure the energy in a slice of bread? It's an abstract concept.

Let me try a different approach....

I can measure the wind in kgs. Lets say a 10kg wind is one strong enough to move a 1 kilo object... or somesuch. It's a measurement, yes? One that seems to make intuitive sense. Yet it isn't measuring any inherent property of the wind. It's a relative measurement, depending on the 1 kilo object.

Likewise, I suggest 'a calorie' isn't an inherent property of a slice of bread. Not like you can analyse it's vitamin or mineral content. It's a reverse engineered description in relation to a supposed effect; that is, it will provide x calories worth of output energy.

 

[yello]

Well, that was interesting! Out of curiosity, I decided to find out how the calorific value of foodstuffs is calculated.

Originally, it was literally burnt! In an instrument called a calorimeter apparently. The food was set alight and placed in a container, then submerged in water. The resulting rise in water temperature formed the basis of the calorie count. These days, the foods' composition (fat, carb, protein, alcohol) is weighed and multiplied by an average calorific value for each component, the total giving the total calories.

Now all I have to do is find out how the calorie burn calculation for muscle is made.... I'm presuming it's not in a crematorium

 

[MattHB]

We used to do that very experiment in science at school we burned biscuits and stuff like that.

Do you think a HRM would be essential to make sure you stay in lower intensities to maximise metabolism retraining?

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

We used to do that very experiment in science at school we burned biscuits and stuff like that.

Do you think a HRM would be essential to make sure you stay in lower intensities to maximise metabolism retraining?

If you know your max HR then it would be pretty much essential.

 

[lulubel]

yello, your wind measurement argument is ridiculous. Wind is measured by the speed at which the air is moving, not by the amount of weight it can move.

Likewise, I suggest 'a calorie' isn't an inherent property of a slice of bread. Not like you can analyse it's vitamin or mineral content. It's a reverse engineered description in relation to a supposed effect; that is, it will provide x calories worth of output energy.

No, the number of calories in the bread is the number of calories (in the form of stored chemical energy) that the bread contains. It isn't a vague figure; it's exact. You can even divide the calories up by the bread's nutritional breakdown - 1g of protein/carbohydrate = 4 calories, 1g of fat = 9 calories.

When you eat a slice of bread, the number of calories in the bread is the exact amount of energy you're putting into your body (unless you're messy and you drop crumbs, of course). Your body breaks it down and does a variety of things with it, but the amount of energy never changes.

1st law of thermodynamics - energy can never be created or destroyed, it can only change form