so i've been doing some reading and am confused after seeing a bit of a mixed response. my question is, if I do an 80 mile bike ride, at a moderate pace, what am i burning for energy? i understand its a mix, but is it more fat, protein or carbs?
and the second part is how much can i effect the composition of the fuel used by diet?
i know this isn't the best for building muscle but i have specific training for certain goals.
The composition of what's being burned is highly variable but will pretty much always be more protein than fat once your glycogen is depleted. If you're training specifically for endurance, eat more protein and you can counter those effects somewhat.
If one person can do something, anyone can learn to do it.
Do what you've always done and get what you've always gotten.
There is no failure, only feedback.
"Journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step".--Lao Tzu
consume high glycemic carbohydrate drink + protein during the ride and you will blunt catabolic hormonal reactions (cortisol, etc) that promote the consumption of your own muscle flesh.
By the sounds of it you are trying to burn fat as a prime fuel? Is this assumtion correct?
If that is the case then yes fat is oxidated more when the intensity is less. You body will try and use carbs primarly as this is a easier source and much more readily available. Fat is a source that takes a while to burn. the only time you truely burn lots of fat is when your asleep, and its like 30kcal an hour or something stupid.
If your goal is fat loss, just think about calories. You also have to think about EPOC (Exercise Post Oxygen Consumption) this is where your body continues to burn calories to recovery. This is much much less when performing SS cardio and much higher performing heavy resistance training and also intense cardio.
This information is useless unless you are trying to burn calories for body composition. Are you on the bike for 80m for a specific reason?
paradoxically, when I'm trying to lose fat, I stop doing cardiovascular aerobic exercise. It spikes my hunger way too high and makes cutting calories psychologically a very unpleasant activity. Its much easier to cut without aerobic activity. Just load up on green tea and coffee and eat moderately for a few days and boom, 2 pounds of fat are gone.
If I'm trying to gain mass I will do cardio to stimulate my appetite so I'll eat more.
I go by my hunger, I do not track calories.
i'm not trying to cut, i'm trying out for an adventure racing team and want to build some muscle for the rock climbing portion. additionally, i just enjoy going for long runs or rides, my local cape cod rail trail is pretty sweet
well, building muscle won't necessarily help with rock climbing. Climbing strength is all about weight:strength ratio. A small guy may be a better climber (yet weaker objectively to a large guy) since he is a lightweight. So, cutting any fat is imperative as a climber since fat just weighs you down. Compare that to weight lifting where a little fat is hardly a bother to performance. Just completely different activities
Climbing is very specific activity...if you're not climbing 5.12+ then the very best way to get better at climbing is to.....CLIMB A LOT. Once you start breaking into redpointing 5.12s then I would suggest some non-climbing training activity such as hangboard static holds (2 and 3 finger holds each hand). Also some unilateral work such as single arm lockoffs (with feet off). And weighted climbed (say add 20 pounds of gear to your harness). And cappillary work (30-40 minutes of continuous climbing at a very easy grade with no breaks - just enough to get a mild pump the whole time).
But, until then the very best way to get better at climbing is hang out at the crag and climb all day long Fun stuff too
Last edited by samadhi_smiles; 06-09-2009 at 11:02 AM.