Uphill performance lacking?
- Thread starter GoatBeard
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Some interesting points raised in this thread...
FWIW from the perspective of someone who's pragmatic, skeptical and evidence-led (but with no formal training or deep understanding of nutrition), I've had a lot of success with weight loss through a low-carb diet and extended (3 day+) water fasts. I've had zero success in trying the more "mainstream" approaches such as low-fat food.
When I was really determined on the low-carb thing I was eating fried halloumi and eggs for breakfast (along with lots of other tasty carb-free, high-fat meals) and the weight was falling off at about 0.6kg/wk.. so I really don't think fat is to blame. Also during this time I did a few long, semi-fasted (maybe 12hrs) rides (50+ miles, long for me) and had no issue with running out of energy; performing much as I would have on carbs. Additionally when I got home there was none of the desire to binge on carbs I usually get after exercise.
Granted it's the latest fashionable approach to weight loss but there's a lot of good, scientifically-grounded information on fasting and low carb / keto on the net if anyone's interested. The concept of autophagy is particularly interesting and apparently keys into our ancient sporadic eating habits.
I also buy into the idea that we're not evolved to cope with the massive calorific value of foods now available to us in the form of high-GI refined carbs and firmly believe that these are responsible for the unprecedented amount of obesity, diabetes and heart disease present in the western world. Back when we had to forage or kill for food our intake was environmentally limited; now as a society we're the puppy that's been left alone with an infinite supply of dog biscuits.. there's no evolutionary off-switch so we eat to excess.
There's also the question of emotional eating too; I recall times in the past when I've been unhappy and a particularly gluttonous lunch has consisted of a sandwich, 150g of crisps and 150g of chocolate. I remember the palapable disconnect between my belly being so full it almost hurt, while my brain was still goading me to shovel more down my face to chase the fading dopamine hit from all the refined carbs.
When I started low-carb I realised I'd forgotten how it felt to feel physically hungry / empty (rather than just feeling the drive to eat), and once you're off the carbs hunger becomes less of an all-consuming distraction; instead becoming manageable and easy to dismiss.
As regards the US, funnily enough I was a skinny kid until (IIRC) around the time I visited the US to see relatives. After this I put on a fair bit of weight that only now in my late 30's have I managed to shift to any meaningful degree; being lighter now than I've ever been during my adult life
FWIW from the perspective of someone who's pragmatic, skeptical and evidence-led (but with no formal training or deep understanding of nutrition), I've had a lot of success with weight loss through a low-carb diet and extended (3 day+) water fasts. I've had zero success in trying the more "mainstream" approaches such as low-fat food.
When I was really determined on the low-carb thing I was eating fried halloumi and eggs for breakfast (along with lots of other tasty carb-free, high-fat meals) and the weight was falling off at about 0.6kg/wk.. so I really don't think fat is to blame. Also during this time I did a few long, semi-fasted (maybe 12hrs) rides (50+ miles, long for me) and had no issue with running out of energy; performing much as I would have on carbs. Additionally when I got home there was none of the desire to binge on carbs I usually get after exercise.
Granted it's the latest fashionable approach to weight loss but there's a lot of good, scientifically-grounded information on fasting and low carb / keto on the net if anyone's interested. The concept of autophagy is particularly interesting and apparently keys into our ancient sporadic eating habits.
I also buy into the idea that we're not evolved to cope with the massive calorific value of foods now available to us in the form of high-GI refined carbs and firmly believe that these are responsible for the unprecedented amount of obesity, diabetes and heart disease present in the western world. Back when we had to forage or kill for food our intake was environmentally limited; now as a society we're the puppy that's been left alone with an infinite supply of dog biscuits.. there's no evolutionary off-switch so we eat to excess.
There's also the question of emotional eating too; I recall times in the past when I've been unhappy and a particularly gluttonous lunch has consisted of a sandwich, 150g of crisps and 150g of chocolate. I remember the palapable disconnect between my belly being so full it almost hurt, while my brain was still goading me to shovel more down my face to chase the fading dopamine hit from all the refined carbs.
When I started low-carb I realised I'd forgotten how it felt to feel physically hungry / empty (rather than just feeling the drive to eat), and once you're off the carbs hunger becomes less of an all-consuming distraction; instead becoming manageable and easy to dismiss.
As regards the US, funnily enough I was a skinny kid until (IIRC) around the time I visited the US to see relatives. After this I put on a fair bit of weight that only now in my late 30's have I managed to shift to any meaningful degree; being lighter now than I've ever been during my adult life
Last edited:
Many years ago the late journalist Cliff Temple published an article in the Sunday Times entitled Dieting Makes You Fat. The basic premise is that when most people diet, some of the weight they lose is muscle since, as indicated earlier, the body goes into survival mode and preserves some fat deposits. This tends to lower the body's base metabolic rate, so that when eating returns to normal, the weight goes back on more easily.
Most successful dieting is combined with lifestyle change which incorporates exercise and healthier eating.
- Location
- Inside my skull
Fab Foodie
hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
- Location
- Kirton, Devon.
...it is for me....
PaulSB
Legendary Member
- Location
- Chorley, Lancashire
I don't know if the fat burning zone has been debunked or not. I certainly find it works for me and a lot of local exercise classes emphasise its' importance - they may not be up to date?
I'm interested in your first sentence. Could you expand on what you mean by absolute terms for fat burn? I'd like to understand this better. You're correct in that harder one exercises the more calories are burnt but the important point for me is where those calories come from. If the rider is burning calories provided directly by food or the body is burning fat reserves this has a positive effect on weight loss, which I feel is the nub of this conversation. If the body is creating energy by burning muscle this is negative in terms of weight loss. It is my, possibly incorrect, understanding hard exercise, that 80% of HR the body is working much harder and stops burning fat.
As an aside my 80% is a 128/130. I did a tough ride Sunday 37 miles/4100 feet/120bpm/avg and yesterday an easy ride 30 miles/1250 feet/109bpm/avg. It would be very hard for me to maintain hard exercise at beyond my comfortable 80% of HR, I can do it but it's very hard to sustain for say two hours.
It's snake oil and perpetuated on forums and exercise classes around the world. People like the idea of losing more fat by working less hard.
Imagine 1 person on a gym bike, he rides for 30 minutes at max heart rate. Say he burns 400 calories of which 200 is fat - so 50%.
The next day, after being fully rested, the same guy does 30 minutes at a leisurely pace, say 100bpm. He burns only 150 calories of which 100 is fat - so 66% or thereabouts.
Some people will look at that and think EUREKA! You burn more fat at lower heart rates. Well, you do, sort of, but only proportionately and not in absolute terms.
I'm not making any of this up
🤷♂️
Proto
Legendary Member
- Location
- East Devon/West Dorset
The physiology of eating/nutrition is very, very complex. It’s not as simple as Just calorie restriction. What you eat, how processed it is, how much sugar (carbs) is in it, when you eat, the individual’s gut biome, The list goes on and on.
An adage from a nutritionist: “Don’t eat anything that’s advertised on television. It’s shoot and will make you fat”
Another: “Don’t eat anything that is advertised as ’low fat’. It’s shoot and will make you fat”
Finally: ”Exercising will not make you thin.”
An adage from a nutritionist: “Don’t eat anything that’s advertised on television. It’s shoot and will make you fat”
Another: “Don’t eat anything that is advertised as ’low fat’. It’s shoot and will make you fat”
Finally: ”Exercising will not make you thin.”
Last edited:
fatjel
Veteran
- Location
- West Wales
I like eating and I like cycling. 5' '8" 13 stone
I travel at my own pace. A pace I share with Mr Snail.
I travel at my own pace. A pace I share with Mr Snail.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Don't take advice from a fat nutritionist, and there are plenty around - they clearly have a problem somewhere, and you never know whether it's willpower or knowledge.
11 stone , while not heavy , isn't exactly skinny either for 5'4" to 5'7" ish.
I'm 5'8" and was usually just a pound or two under 11 stones.
However 3 years ago once I got rid of my car my weight went down to 10 stones.
Still not great on hills.
I get up them every time , but slowly.
( pjd57 age 63 , vegan , ignore if not relevant )
I'm 5'8" and was usually just a pound or two under 11 stones.
However 3 years ago once I got rid of my car my weight went down to 10 stones.
Still not great on hills.
I get up them every time , but slowly.
( pjd57 age 63 , vegan , ignore if not relevant )
Ajax Bay
Guru
- Location
- East Devon
This is a good treatment of converting power into speed (though NB the CdA used is for aero bars and wearing an aero helmet):
https://www.endurance-data.com/en/power-to-speed-calculator-pro/
https://www.endurance-data.com/en/power-to-speed-calculator-pro/
fatjel
Veteran
- Location
- West Wales
You could always ask the other guy to slow down a bit,
It's snake oil and perpetuated on forums and exercise classes around the world. People like the idea of losing more fat by working less hard.
Imagine 1 person on a gym bike, he rides for 30 minutes at max heart rate. Say he burns 400 calories of which 200 is fat - so 50%.
The next day, after being fully rested, the same guy does 30 minutes at a leisurely pace, say 100bpm. He burns only 150 calories of which 100 is fat - so 66% or thereabouts.
Some people will look at that and think EUREKA! You burn more fat at lower heart rates. Well, you do, sort of, but only proportionately and not in absolute terms.
I'm not making any of this up
But you're comparing the same duration.
Its the time spent at lower intensity that pays dividends
Ridgeway
Veteran
- Location
- Lausanne, Switzerland
I had a similar question some weeks back and have been focusing to some degree on my climbs (here a typical climb is ave 6%, max 8-9% and maybe 1km long at max). What's helped me so far:
- pacing, starting around 140bpm, most of the climb at 150bpm and then maxing out over the last 100m or so at +160bpm
- knowing the climb so you can apply the above and also being prepared with gear changes
- a higher cadence has helped me, probably around 92-94 now
My weight loss since lockdown has been 6.2kgs so far and has been achieved by the cycle more/eat less approach, but i'll be honest i could eat a scabby dog right now (late night watching TV sat on the sofa
)
- pacing, starting around 140bpm, most of the climb at 150bpm and then maxing out over the last 100m or so at +160bpm
- knowing the climb so you can apply the above and also being prepared with gear changes
- a higher cadence has helped me, probably around 92-94 now
My weight loss since lockdown has been 6.2kgs so far and has been achieved by the cycle more/eat less approach, but i'll be honest i could eat a scabby dog right now (late night watching TV sat on the sofa
)