Fueling for excercise & max fat burn

[BikeSwimLaugh]

Question....

I love to take long bike rides, my longest ride takes about 3 hours and covers about 24 miles, many of the grades are 9-12%...these hills have names like "Hell Hill" and "Widow-Maker"

My goal: burn fat, burn fat, burn fat....

I wake-up in the morning and I'm ready to leave, I like to get my ride in early to fire-up the whole day. My question is about nutrition:

One theory advocates that you do your cardio first thing in the morning and on an empty stomach. It's explained that in the morning (from not eating) your blood-sugar is low and as such you'll get right into burning the fat as soon as you start exercising. I've done my whole ride on an empty stomach, it tends to be a bit slower at times...but it's like hit & miss...sometimes I'm fired-up with energy, other times I drag. Not sure if that's relevant.

AND THEN ON THE OTHER HAND....I hear this notion that "Fat burns in a carbohydrate flame" and as such I need to eat something in the morning before I ride in order to facilitate the most fat-burning potential.

So, question #1 is....should I eat before I ride? When I do eat, I have a small amount of grape-nuts cereal with some raisons, a small glass of orange juice and a prune or two. I eat about 30-40 minutes before I start my ride.

Moving along.....

Question #2...should I eat during/while riding? Many road-bikers say they eat constantly as they ride, to help maintain blood-sugar and keep the proverbial furnace stoked. I don't eat while I ride. I may eat a bit mid-way at a rest, but not as I ride. My concern is that I've been told that fat metabolizing STOPS as soon as your blood-sugar level goes up (being that it goes up from eating the food). I'm not out to win a race, I'm looking to burn fat...so perhaps I should avoid eating while I ride to keep that blood sugar low and force my body to keep metabolizing that fat? eh???

And finally, question #3....post-workout.

Two theories....one says it's best to eat immediately after the workout and that supposedly it's impossible for the body to store food as fat immediately following excercise...making post-workout the best time to take in food. You replenish your glycogen, etc.

The other theory is that after the workout the bloodsugar is low and the body will keep on metabolizing fat striving to raise the blood sugar: eating food will bring that blood-sugar up and terminate fat oxidation/metabolization. I've been told that by NOT eating after my rides for an hour, I can squeeze a bit more fat into the furnace.

So there ya go...before, during & after....when to eat, how much and what to eat? Anybody??? Wrangell? Wrangell? Bueller?? And please, don't spare the details...inquiring fat-burners wanna know!

 

[matt182]

interesting, well heres my opinion:

Question....

I love to take long bike rides, my longest ride takes about 3 hours and covers about 24 miles, many of the grades are 9-12%...these hills have names like "Hell Hill" and "Widow-Maker"

My goal: burn fat, burn fat, burn fat....

I wake-up in the morning and I'm ready to leave, I like to get my ride in early to fire-up the whole day. My question is about nutrition:

One theory advocates that you do your cardio first thing in the morning and on an empty stomach. It's explained that in the morning (from not eating) your blood-sugar is low and as such you'll get right into burning the fat as soon as you start exercising. I've done my whole ride on an empty stomach, it tends to be a bit slower at times...but it's like hit & miss...sometimes I'm fired-up with energy, other times I drag. Not sure if that's relevant.

AND THEN ON THE OTHER HAND....I hear this notion that "Fat burns in a carbohydrate flame" and as such I need to eat something in the morning before I ride in order to facilitate the most fat-burning potential.

So, question #1 is....should I eat before I ride? When I do eat, I have a small amount of grape-nuts cereal with some raisons, a small glass of orange juice and a prune or two. I eat about 30-40 minutes before I start my ride.

Moving along.....

Its true about fat burning in a carbo flame. I dont support training on an empty stomach at all. The fact is you will fatigue much sooner and perform below par as glucose is a key factor in muscle fatigue. Even if you fuel up on low gi carbs, the body will still be burning a considerable portion of fat, and less protein which i would suspect would be occuring riding on a empty stomach.

Question #2...should I eat during/while riding? Many road-bikers say they eat constantly as they ride, to help maintain blood-sugar and keep the proverbial furnace stoked. I don't eat while I ride. I may eat a bit mid-way at a rest, but not as I ride. My concern is that I've been told that fat metabolizing STOPS as soon as your blood-sugar level goes up (being that it goes up from eating the food). I'm not out to win a race, I'm looking to burn fat...so perhaps I should avoid eating while I ride to keep that blood sugar low and force my body to keep metabolizing that fat? eh???

Again they have a point, you dont have to eat, put consume something with a high GI to keep your fuel up thus allowing you to continue for longer and harder thus burn more fat. It would only be about 60g of simple carbs.

And finally, question #3....post-workout.

Two theories....one says it's best to eat immediately after the workout and that supposedly it's impossible for the body to store food as fat immediately following excercise...making post-workout the best time to take in food. You replenish your glycogen, etc.

The other theory is that after the workout the bloodsugar is low and the body will keep on metabolizing fat striving to raise the blood sugar: eating food will bring that blood-sugar up and terminate fat oxidation/metabolization. I've been told that by NOT eating after my rides for an hour, I can squeeze a bit more fat into the furnace.

So there ya go...before, during & after....when to eat, how much and what to eat? Anybody??? Wrangell? Wrangell? Bueller?? And please, don't spare the details...inquiring fat-burners wanna know!

Rememeber the fat burns in a carbo flame, yes i would say consume carbs post exercise.

 

[BikeSwimLaugh]

So eat before, a bit during and certainly afterwards.....

I just figured the more I eat, the more the body would use that food for energy instead of fat. Of course, the idea being that I want to optimize fat-oxidation in all phases.

Thanks Matt. Still hoping Wrangell will chime-in on this one.

 

[matt182]

Oh by the way when i said id eat before, thats a at least an hour before exercising because the insulin would disturb t he fatty oxidation.

I guess a lot depends on your overall calorie intake and expenditure of the day.

Who knos where wrangell is ?

 

[BikeSwimLaugh]

Thanks again Matt...

I'm just convinced that my results aren't as good as they should be AND there's some kind of missing key that would help kick things up.

I realize it's ridiculous...but sometimes it seems that all my cardio is just depleting other energy sources then fat, or very little fat. If there was just something I could do or take that would help burn more fat. I know the body doesn't just burn or use one source for energy, but a combination of several (fat, glycogen, protein, ATP, etc)....but still, I'm convinced I can somehow tweak the fat-metabolism in some way.

Course, I was also convinced that if I met Madonna I could sleep with her and that theory turned out to be wrong....but I did wake up a few times with.....NEVERMIND.

One other thing. When I ride I'm generally doing about 140-150 on the heartbeats...I can sustain that almost indefinitely. When I hit the hills I'm at 155-168 for several minutes, and as I peak the hills I do a 3-4 minute blast of 175-180 as I summit. Downhill I pretty much cruise and my HR falls to 120, but downhills last only a few minutes and I'm back to the grind in no time. To me, I feel like I'm going HIIT pretty much all the time or darn near close to it. Shouldn't these 3-hour rides and a low-calorie diet just be melting the fat away?

 

[matt182]

A start of a long successfull weigh loss plan requires a lifelong behavioural change, lifestyle and diet.

Make sure yoru diets in check with a calorie defecit.

Diet and exercise together is the optimal option, incase you didnt know if one had to choose between one of them, the diet is far more effective alone. The exercise will help with the defecit and at the same time improving your health and life expectancy.

An overweight/obese person would have hundreds of thousands of kcals stored (compared to a couple thousand as glycogen) so as you can see its a graduall process.

As long as your losing weight and improving your health which is number one thats great!

 

[BikeSwimLaugh]

Matt,

Reading between the lines I think I hear you loud & clear.....you're suggesting I bring a another woman into the bedroom for my wife and I to share. If that is truly your prescription, then I'll just have to make the sacrifice and do as you suggest!

I totally agree with all you say. Time and again I've heard about how the overall caloric intake is the biggest part of the picture..."more then anything it's what you put in your mouth that makes the difference".

I have no problem going light & lean in the morning & afternoon...but no matter how much I eat (or not) during the day, I get ravenously MONSTEROUSLY hungry at night. I don't give into it...but it's tough.

 

[Wrangell]

Thanks again Matt...

I'm just convinced that my results aren't as good as they should be AND there's some kind of missing key that would help kick things up.

I realize it's ridiculous...but sometimes it seems that all my cardio is just depleting other energy sources then fat, or very little fat. If there was just something I could do or take that would help burn more fat. I know the body doesn't just burn or use one source for energy, but a combination of several (fat, glycogen, protein, ATP, etc)....but still, I'm convinced I can somehow tweak the fat-metabolism in some way.

If you're doing moderate duration steady state cardio and you're not out of breath while you're doing it - chances are good, you're burning mostly fat.

Beyond that, if you want to optimize fat loss per calorie expended overall ...focus more on HIIT sessions....they'll help you preserve muscle mass versus doing 3 hours of endurance cardio and they'll also take much less time ( i.e 20 - 40 minutes vs 3 hours )

Course, I was also convinced that if I met Madonna I could sleep with her and that theory turned out to be wrong....but I did wake up a few times with.....NEVERMIND.

One other thing. When I ride I'm generally doing about 140-150 on the heartbeats...I can sustain that almost indefinitely. When I hit the hills I'm at 155-168 for several minutes, and as I peak the hills I do a 3-4 minute blast of 175-180 as I summit. Downhill I pretty much cruise and my HR falls to 120, but downhills last only a few minutes and I'm back to the grind in no time. To me, I feel like I'm going HIIT pretty much all the time or darn near close to it. Shouldn't these 3-hour rides and a low-calorie diet just be melting the fat away?

I suspect it's melted fat AND muscle away.

Besides...you dropped your bodyfat % from 27% to where your body fat % is now somewhere around 13% or so ( healthy normal is around 15% and most men in the U.S. are around 22% ) ....so, I'd say you HAVE melted the fat away. Wouldn't you ?

 

[BikeSwimLaugh]

If you're doing moderate duration steady state cardio and you're not out of breath while you're doing it - chances are good, you're burning mostly fat?

I'm thoroughly fascinated with this concept and would appreciate some insight. Aside from really steep portions of my ride, I'm averaging about 145 HR and I'm breathing fairly heavy. I wouldn't say I'm "out of breath" but I wouldn't be able to carry on a conversation without gasping for air A BIT. I timed it and I'm taking about 1 breath per second...please simulate that and tell me what you think.

Not long ago I ran into a pro-trainer who told me I'd be better off taking a brisk walk rather then biking....he suggested a long-duration walk at 110-115 HR would more focus on burning fat then my biking. He said biking was great for conditioning & training, but not optimal for fat-loss. Most other trainers said he was full of bs and that a higher intensity exercise burns fat AND increases metabolism and all sorts of other stuff. Remember how I was saying how it feels like I'm fueling-up and then depleting glycogen for my rides and somehow not taping into my fat....well, this is exactly my concern!

Are you suggesting I might lower my gearing a few gears and deliberately peddle slower so as to keep my HR around 110-120 in order to more likely (by theory) burn more fat?

As for my Body-Fat%....those calipers are notorious for measuring lean, and it also depends where he pinches, and we both know it only gets the fat right under the skin (what's that called again?)...not the internal fat. I promise you, the digital calipers may say 13%, but many people comparing themselves tell me "at my lowest I was 16% and you, in no way, look to be lower then that!"....I get that all the time. My wife's trainer (all certified, etc) just recently guessed I was at about 19%. So that's what I'm telling you: I work-out like a demon, eat healthy & low calories, my body-fat continues to go down (by the pinch)...but the scale moves slowly and I feel ripped-off in terms of effort-per-results.

So do I have to eat MORE to lose weight? Do I have to exercise LESS to lose more weight?....I'm seeing a professional certified dietician/nutritionist/trainer and even he conceeds I'm a FREAK and nobody he has ever worked with has presented conditions like me. I'm making progress....but I'm telling ya: something ain't right!

I suspect it's melted fat AND muscle away.

Another great concern of mine: maybe I'm building the muscle and then eating it up. Catabolism: how can I avoid it? How can I focus mainly on just melting the fat? I take BCAA's before and sometimes during my rides...and perhaps eating a bit as I go will also prevent it. Any thoughts?

you dropped your bodyfat % from 27% to where your body fat % is now somewhere around 13% or so....so, I'd say you HAVE melted the fat away. Wouldn't you ?

Yes, I've lost a lot of fat and my gut is smaller....but I've still got a good deal of visable fat on my face, love-handles and other areas. The pinchers say 13%, but I'm telling ya....looks/feels like 20%.

I'm looking into getting that "Dexa" thing done.....ya know, the more accurate means to truly determine accurate bf%

Again, like Happysj56 said....maybe my brain just hasn't caught-up with my real picture.

Thanks for all the patience & info....I know, this is all OCD annoying to read....but this IS the heart of the battle!

 

[matt182]

That "protrainer" is full of bs like others have said

You have to understand that it doesnt matter if your "fueled" up on glycogen when you ride. At a given intensity a certain percentage of fat will be used as energy. The greater proportion of fat use during exercise is somewhere around 70% of maximal output. If anything the higher glycogen will alow you to perform stronger and longer.

And yep you mean subcutaneous fat. Its not a question of whether you have to eat more, but to eat a good diet thats around 500kcals (?) below your maintanace.

theres my 2cents anway..

 

[sparrow]

Maybe you should post a typical day in the life of your 3 hour workouts. I'd love to see what you're currently doing.

To go to earlier posts. I'm certainly no expert but I have experimented with my own diet a bit this last triathlon season enough to know that eating before and ESPECIALLY after is really key in losing body fat. I used to do fasted cardio and when I started eating before my workouts they simply were more quality. It doesn't have to be much. I had a cup of oatmeal and 3 egg whites to start. When I noticed the biggest difference was when I started using a post workout drink right after hard endurance type workouts, and even sometimes during. I use Accelerade. My body fat dropped even further and I recovered SO much more quickly able to turn around and go hard the next day. I also preserved my muscle with this combo. Beforehand I know for a fact it was getting burned up as I worked out so hard on so little fuel. Increasing my overall calories not only got me better quality workouts but I lost more wieght and fat with the increase. Perhaps you're not eating enough overall for the type of workouts you're doing.

 

[Wrangell]

I'm thoroughly fascinated with this concept and would appreciate some insight. Aside from really steep portions of my ride, I'm averaging about 145 HR and I'm breathing fairly heavy. I wouldn't say I'm "out of breath" but I wouldn't be able to carry on a conversation without gasping for air A BIT. I timed it and I'm taking about 1 breath per second...please simulate that and tell me what you think.

If you are somewhat ' out breath ' ( i.e. only a bit ) it just means you're still burning both fats and sugars but probably just a slightly higher proportion of sugars than fat...by that I mean in comparison to the proportion of fat you'd of burned if you hadn't been ' out of breath '.

That said, there's nothing wrong with ' breathing fairly heavy ' at all - it simply reflects a somewhat higher level of intensity.

All other things being equal, the higher intensity you exercise at.......the more calories you burn.......and the more calories you burn, the more fat you'll eventually lose.

It's pretty simple, this isn't rocket science.......losing fat on your body is all about losing calories.....or more specifically, to create a calorie deficit.

Not long ago I ran into a pro-trainer who told me I'd be better off taking a brisk walk rather then biking....he suggested a long-duration walk at 110-115 HR would more focus on burning fat then my biking.

All other things being equal ( i.e both cardio sessions are at same duration, steady state, etc. etc. ), if this ' brisk walk ' burns more calories than your bike ride, then the walk is the best option to maximize fat loss.

However, all other things being equal, if this bike ride burns more calories than your ' brisk walk ' , then the bike ride is the best option to maximize fat loss.

Losing fat on your body is all about losing calories.

He said biking was great for conditioning & training, but not optimal for fat-loss.

You can certainly shred fat by bike riding...biking is a great cardio / fat burning workout....i.e spinning classes are a great example..

' Optimal ' is a relative term and things like duration, frequency, intensity of your cardio may result in different interpretations of what the meaning of and or the relevance of ' optimal ' might be.

Most other trainers said he was full of bs and that a higher intensity exercise burns fat AND increases metabolism and all sorts of other stuff.

Correct.

Remember how I was saying how it feels like I'm fueling-up and then depleting glycogen for my rides and somehow not taping into my fat....well, this is exactly my concern!

But, you ARE tapping into your fat.

You simply can't sustain a 3 hour bike ride at such a high intensity such that you do not use fat as fuel.

Are you suggesting I might lower my gearing a few gears and deliberately peddle slower so as to keep my HR around 110-120 in order to more likely (by theory) burn more fat?

No........that would embrace the myth that some sort of optimal ' fat burning zone ' exists - i.e at lower MHR - can lead to optimal fat loss overall.

As i said above, the key to losing fat is to simply to burn calories .......to create a calorie deficit. So, that means, burning as many calories you can either during or after exercise ( as a result of the exercise ) along with some minor reductions in calorie intake from your diet. Do that and you will create the calorie deficit you need to help you lose fat.

That said, don't get to hung up on doing cardio within some so-called " fat burning zone " or " cardio zone " of heart-rates may you see on a chart on a gym wall or displayed on some cardio machine. Focus on total calories burned when doing cardio instead as it pertains to contributing to the calorie deficit I mentioned above...not heart rate.

Here's why.

Typically, your heart rate is somewhere in the 65% - 80 % MHR ( Maximum Heart Rate ) range for most " fat burning zones " and 85%+ for " cardio zones ". As I said above, I'd ignore the emphasis on heart rate levels and focus on calories instead. For example, if you do cardio for 30 minutes at 65% MHR, you might burn 200 calories - of which 140 calories are from fat. But if you do cardio for 30 minutes at 85%+ MHR, you might burn 400 calories - of which 200 calories are from fat. The higher intensity burns more calories.

But even though fat calories as a % of total calories at a higher intensity ( 85% ) is less than at a lower intensity ( 65% ), you still burn more fat calories overall. The so-called " cardio zone " burns more total calories and more fat calories than does the so-called " fat burning zone ". If more total calories burned result in more fat loss - then, which would you choose if you wanted to optimize fat loss ?

In any event, the other point to keep in mind is that the calories burned during exercise is only part of the answer. As you correctly pointed out, cardio also keeps your metabolism ramped up long after you exercise, which in and of itself burns more calories. And in this case as well, the more intense the cardio ( i.e HIIT vs steady state cardio ) , the greater the post-exercise bump in metabolism........and the greater calorie burn.

Again, at the end of the day, the key to losing fat boils down to burning calories - i.e to simply create a calorie deficit.

As for my Body-Fat%....those calipers are notorious for measuring lean, and it also depends where he pinches, and we both know it only gets the fat right under the skin (what's that called again?)...not the internal fat. I promise you, the digital calipers may say 13%, but many people comparing themselves tell me "at my lowest I was 16% and you, in no way, look to be lower then that!"....I get that all the time. My wife's trainer (all certified, etc) just recently guessed I was at about 19%. So that's what I'm telling you: I work-out like a demon, eat healthy & low calories, my body-fat continues to go down (by the pinch)...but the scale moves slowly and I feel ripped-off in terms of effort-per-results.

" my body-fat continues to go down " - this is exactly what you want....isn't it ?

If it were me, I'd simply focus on your ' relative ' body fat % readings more and put less emphasis on your scale.

So do I have to eat MORE to lose weight? Do I have to exercise LESS to lose more weight?

First of all, you've slashed your body fat in half from 27% to where you are now at 13% - with 13% even surpassing a ' healthy normal ' of 15%. Not only that, you've also gained muscle mass during that time.

So, you slashed fat and added muscle - the primary goal of every gym rat.

So, with all due respect, I'm not sure what your problem is here ( i.e questioning your diet etc. ) ......you are getting great results !

....I'm seeing a professional certified dietician/nutritionist/trainer and even he conceeds I'm a FREAK and nobody he has ever worked with has presented conditions like me. I'm making progress....but I'm telling ya: something ain't right!

Again, you slashed fat to a ' very good ' 13% AND added muscle - what " isn't right " about that exactly ?

I don't follow.

btw - this 1,800 calories you consume a day....what was the BMR and maintenance calorie calc you came up with ......based on that link I gave you ?

Another great concern of mine: maybe I'm building the muscle and then eating it up. Catabolism: how can I avoid it? How can I focus mainly on just melting the fat? I take BCAA's before and sometimes during my rides...and perhaps eating a bit as I go will also prevent it. Any thoughts?

What makes you think you're losing muscle ?

I thought you said you ' gained ' muscle ?

 

[BikeSwimLaugh]

Gang,

I can't thank you all enough for helping me put a fresh & realistic perspective on things. It means a lot to me that you'd take the time to help so much. There are so many questions redirected at me that I'm not sure where to start...but I want to reassure you that you've all very well made your points and helped me put my head back together again.

You're right, I have made progress...and I suppose it is excellent progress. What clouded my perspective were these culprits:

1) An appalling lack of being able to see the difference (for myself) in the mirror. Watching fat reduce is like trying to watch hair grow....it's just a gradual process that (for me) couldn't be perceived. I've had plenty of people call me "Half-Steve" on account of my progress...but it's amazing how I just don't see it.

2) Too much focus on the weight scale. 27 pounds doesn't seem like much over the course of some 8 months working as hard as I have....BUT my documented gain of some 12+ pounds of lean muscle would correct the figure to an honest loss of some 40+ pounds. Beyond that, the change in body-fat percentage from 27% to 13% is more the honest picture. So why the issue: cause people ask and evaluates diet success based on the simple question "so how much weight have you lost?". I couldn't break away from that scale and looking beyond that made me feel like I was grasping for excuses. Here on this forum, I'm surrounded by people who can understand and appreciate the bigger picture.

The link Wrangell directed me to was accurate. Subtracting 20% for fat loss, my BMR is 3 calories shy of 1,800. The excercise schedule suggest I consume about 2,700 calories per day....so I have been creating a HUGE calorie deficit and that's what's to account for my drop in BF%. Why the scale doesn't drop in the same direction as the BF%...I guess it's muscle-gain? Example, just last week I went in for evaulation (after 3 weeks): up 1 pound on the scale, down .06% body-fat on the pinch. Several times this scenario has played-out....body-fat down, scale up: FRUSTRATING. But what makes me different is that I'm massively exercising while dieting, so I shouldn't compare my progress with the Atkin's, Weight-Watchers and other people who just cut calories to 1,200 and maybe walk once or twice per week: my chest looks like it could bench a bus while their chest looks like it got ran over by one!

SO I GET IT NOW....

I also appreciate Sparrow's & Matt's contributions....I think I'm exercising on without having eaten enough before or after. Disillusioned with the idea that less calories in will result in more fat loss, I've been riding on scarce calories and empty stomachs. I avoid accelerade for it's content of sugar. I think I can get more out of my workouts by stoking the fire....I'll give it a shot! And as Wrangell so vividly prompts: it's all about a calorie deficit: more out then in and the results are inevitable. And btw, my reference to OCD is somewhat jovial...I'm just resoundly focused & determined....but I do consider this a mission of sorts...

Thanks again for all the help, insight and support!

 

[Wrangell]

The link Wrangell directed me to was accurate. Subtracting 20% for fat loss, my BMR is 3 calories shy of 1,800. The excercise schedule suggest I consume about 2,700 calories per day....so I have been creating a HUGE calorie deficit and that's what's to account for my drop in BF%.

Keep in mind, BMR is supposed to represent the calories you need just to keep you alive - i.e. as though you were in a coma...unconscious...not awake at all....out cold !

So, your 20% cut should be based on the ' maintenance calories ' calc - is the 2,700 the number you get before you cut ' maintenance calories ' back by 20% or after you cut ' maintenance calories ' back by 20% ?

 

[matt182]

Nice too see your improving and learning at the same time,
good luck BSL!

 

[BikeSwimLaugh]

Keep in mind, BMR is supposed to represent the calories you need just to keep you alive - i.e. as though you were in a coma...unconscious...not awake at all....out cold

Unconscious.....yes, I know....I've been to college!

So, your 20% cut should be based on the ' maintenance calories ' calc - is the 2,700 the number you get before you cut ' maintenance calories ' back by 20% or after you cut ' maintenance calories ' back by 20% ?

I'm not sure what you are asking....but if I plug in the weight I want to be at, my BMR would be 1,800...but since I exercise I think I'm supposed to be more around 2,700. I dunno, but I'm probably taking in between 1,700 to 2,500 calories per day. I eat the same breakfast each day, but all the other meals are mixed and I don't keep perfect track of every calorie. The one thing I do know is that most people would be surprised how many calories they take in....there's more calories in food then most imagine and it's easy to mentally think you are taking in 1,500 when in fact you're up closer to 2,300: it adds up!

I'm not going to worry about that calculation...I do what I do and so long as my direction is lighter & leaner, I'm good-to-go!