And Post Mortem is an appropriate term, basically I died today...
I rode yesterday after sitting on the couch on Friday (5 days in a row of getting wet was enough, I didn't feel like adding a sixth). Yesterday (Saturday), I rode to West Head with Renegade, another rider and I pretty much sat on the front, and it was only a small group. I ended up averaging about 31km/hr over the entire distance (106km). For those who have done West Head, they know that this isn't an easy ride, but that speed is about in line with my ability.
Anyway, up bright and early today, headed out to do the National Park, making good time and riding pretty well, the Wind was giving me a bit of grief going up the Kingsway, but I didn't think much of it. When riding along the Princess Highway, I again thought that the wind was making it harder, in reality it was probably the warning sign.
After climbing out of Waterfall, I ate my usual Anzac biscuit and the Gel that I carry as I was starting to feel pretty bad. Not a good sign.
I managed to do a pretty good turn to Flat Rock Creek, but again suffered coming out the other side. Just short of Artillery Hill, Fred and George caught up to me, and we descended together, I was still strong enough to beat them out the other side, but not with my usual flair. I wasn't turning the pedals smoothly and I didn't feel strong on the bike.
At Sutherland I pulled in and had a Sports drink, and about a 10 minutes rest, I thought that I could make it home on that.
Wrong.
At Sandringham St I started to feel pretty average again, and going along The Grand Parade I was feeling really ragged. I decided to just keep going knowing that Home was about 12km away. Heading back along West Botany Rd, I had to pull into the Service Station at the Princess Highway for some more food, I was now in a really bad way, I could feel my legs shaking due to low blood sugar.
On leaving there, I caught up to a rider on a flat bar road bike with a luggage rack on the back. After crossing Cooks River, he then proceeded to drop me, that is how bad I was.
I did manage to make it home, but I was a write off for an hour or so until I had managed to metabolise the food I ate once back here.
Now, to be honest, I know that hitting The Wall is a simple result of exhausting your blood sugar. But while I did start off riding pretty fast, I was within my limits, I don't think that I was sitting above my lactate threshold. Therefore, I mustn't have eaten enough yesterday, but I ate pretty much what I would have normally eaten after my Saturday ride.
The other thing that surprised me was that I didn't seem to be able to recover from it at Sutherland, the ride back is pretty easy compared the park. I only had 60 minutes of riding remaining, and I would have thought that the short break and a sports drink would have been sufficient, goes to show how wrong I was.
James
Todays Ride - A Post Mortem
I knew you were buggered, but it never occured to me it would be that bad. You did not put the usual distance on us even though we were not going flat out. In hind sight, you should have taken that gel, but its easy to say that now!
Hope you recover quick!
Hope you recover quick!
Actually, you didn't exhaust your blood sugar, but rather the glycogen store. You would really have died if you exhausted your blood sugar. 
Have a good recovery and the rest of us now know you are still human.
Have a good recovery and the rest of us now know you are still human.
From what I understand, whenever you exercise you are burning a mixture of fat and blood glucose. Your intensity determines what the ratio is.
This is why lactate threshold is important. When you exercise below your lactate threshold, you are burning predominately fat, when you go above it, you burn mainly blood glucose. When I had my VO2 Max taken, I had a lactate threshold of about 80%. This means that when I train at or below 80% of my VO2 Max, then I burn mostly fat.
James
This is why lactate threshold is important. When you exercise below your lactate threshold, you are burning predominately fat, when you go above it, you burn mainly blood glucose. When I had my VO2 Max taken, I had a lactate threshold of about 80%. This means that when I train at or below 80% of my VO2 Max, then I burn mostly fat.
James
Burning fat isn't the only aim of exercises.
-
mikesbytes
- Posts: 6991
- Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
- Location: Tempe
- Contact:
Technically we don't burn fat, we burn the glycogen and then replace that glyocgen with the most convenient source, which is digested sugar and hence the term "recovery drinks". When there is no other source of energy, the body will convert stored fat.
There are tricks to get the body to harvest the fat reserves, but the bottom line for fat loss is that calories in is less that calories out.
There are tricks to get the body to harvest the fat reserves, but the bottom line for fat loss is that calories in is less that calories out.
-
mikesbytes
- Posts: 6991
- Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
- Location: Tempe
- Contact:
It will vary from person to person, but the Waterfall ride burns enough calories for 400gms of fat. Trick is to eat normally for the rest of the day, ie don't pig out to make up for the ride.yes that is correct...
ok
If i want to burn fat, do i have to do less hardcore work outs?
(ie. do the waterfall ride?
Endurance rides are typically spank in the middle of your fat burning zone, and Waterfall ride would be classified as an endurance ride, especially at the pace we typically ride at. Track sprints are far less effective at burning fat.
Mythbuster mode on:
Myth: "Low-intensity exercise is better for fat burning."
The idea is that if you exercise at low intensity, around 50 to 60% of your maximum heart rate, you burn more fat than if you exercise at a higher heart rate, like the 70 to 85% recommended for improving fitness. That would be great news for walkers: as long as you’re walking fast enough that you can talk, but not sing, you’re getting more out of it than the red-faced, sweaty joggers who huff and puff past you.
Sadly, not entirely true. Yes, you burn more fat as a percentage of the total energy you burn when exercising at low intensity — it accounts for almost all the fuel your body uses. But you burn more actual fat per minute, and a lot more total calories, at higher intensities.
The advantage of low-intensity exercise, especially for people who aren’t terribly fit, is that it’s less tiring and puts less strain on the body, so you can exercise for a longer period of time. In the end, it’s the total calories burnt that count — so for maximum weight loss you can either get puffing or just keep going for longer.
Bottom line: Low-intensity exercise is great for beginners, while exercising at higher intensities helps you get fitter and burn more total energy in a given amount of time.
I would have written somwething up myself, but I couldnt be bothered and a google search is quicker, and produces a more eloquently written explanation.
Form http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.as ... cise+myths
Myth: "Low-intensity exercise is better for fat burning."
The idea is that if you exercise at low intensity, around 50 to 60% of your maximum heart rate, you burn more fat than if you exercise at a higher heart rate, like the 70 to 85% recommended for improving fitness. That would be great news for walkers: as long as you’re walking fast enough that you can talk, but not sing, you’re getting more out of it than the red-faced, sweaty joggers who huff and puff past you.
Sadly, not entirely true. Yes, you burn more fat as a percentage of the total energy you burn when exercising at low intensity — it accounts for almost all the fuel your body uses. But you burn more actual fat per minute, and a lot more total calories, at higher intensities.
The advantage of low-intensity exercise, especially for people who aren’t terribly fit, is that it’s less tiring and puts less strain on the body, so you can exercise for a longer period of time. In the end, it’s the total calories burnt that count — so for maximum weight loss you can either get puffing or just keep going for longer.
Bottom line: Low-intensity exercise is great for beginners, while exercising at higher intensities helps you get fitter and burn more total energy in a given amount of time.
I would have written somwething up myself, but I couldnt be bothered and a google search is quicker, and produces a more eloquently written explanation.
Form http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.as ... cise+myths
IIRC, fat burn sits at a moderate intensity level. It has to be a level where one can continue for an extended time. High intensity at a short 30-60mins would do less good than an extended 3hr ride as far as fat burn is concerned.
-
mikesbytes
- Posts: 6991
- Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
- Location: Tempe
- Contact:
This assumes you have a 3hr time slot, if you only have 30-60 minutes then it's a different matter.
Personally, I think it's more effective to do one long 3hr ride every 3 days than 1hr every day. Going by personal experience, it's those Waterfall rides that really took my weight off. Yes, restriction on intake after those long rides helped.This assumes you have a 3hr time slot, if you only have 30-60 minutes then it's a different matter.
-
mikesbytes
- Posts: 6991
- Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
- Location: Tempe
- Contact:
Yes, you need to work out what works for you. Has to be something you like doing.
Absolutely. But having science on your side helps.Yes, you need to work out what works for you. Has to be something you like doing.
If the intensity is equal and all else being equal (energy intake and expenditure), the result would be the same. The short of the story is caloric intake and expenditure are what count, not if you burn fat or glycogen. If there is a balance, you maintain your current weight, otherwise you either gain (surplus) or lose (deficit). The rest is detail.
So the idea is that, say for the sake of argument, if you work at a low intensity fr 10min and burn 100cal worth of fat, and then eat 100cal worth of chocolate, you maintain current weight. If you run for ten minutes, burn 250cal worth of fat and glycogen (100cal fat + 150cal glycogen), and eat 100 cal worth of chocolate, you can expect to lose weight. If you eat 100cal worth of chocolate and 50 calories worth of eggs and 100 calories worth of butter you maintain weight.
Working out at low intensity burns predominantly fat, and as you up the intensity you burn more fat until you reach a plateau of fat burning. Upping up intensity further, you continue to burn same amount of fat (at plateau) but then begin to burn more glycogen t fuel your activity and so on. The final result is that with high intensity training, you burn much more energy than with low intensity, except the form in which you burn it is diversified. If you refrain from over-induldging you appetite, you will lose weight. If, on the other hand you give in to your appetite, once you have had enough to replenish glycogen stores, extra intake is converted and saved by the body as fat. So you gain weight.
This is a a drastic oversimplification, but it gives you the idea.
So the idea is that, say for the sake of argument, if you work at a low intensity fr 10min and burn 100cal worth of fat, and then eat 100cal worth of chocolate, you maintain current weight. If you run for ten minutes, burn 250cal worth of fat and glycogen (100cal fat + 150cal glycogen), and eat 100 cal worth of chocolate, you can expect to lose weight. If you eat 100cal worth of chocolate and 50 calories worth of eggs and 100 calories worth of butter you maintain weight.
Working out at low intensity burns predominantly fat, and as you up the intensity you burn more fat until you reach a plateau of fat burning. Upping up intensity further, you continue to burn same amount of fat (at plateau) but then begin to burn more glycogen t fuel your activity and so on. The final result is that with high intensity training, you burn much more energy than with low intensity, except the form in which you burn it is diversified. If you refrain from over-induldging you appetite, you will lose weight. If, on the other hand you give in to your appetite, once you have had enough to replenish glycogen stores, extra intake is converted and saved by the body as fat. So you gain weight.
This is a a drastic oversimplification, but it gives you the idea.
Unfortunately, the energy systems in our body is quite complex with intricate biochemical switches and oversimplification may be misleading.
For people jumping into an hour of high intensity exercises, the fat energy store doesn't really get activated and glycogen will supply the bulk of energy needs. Fat stores will get activated through low-moderate intensity exercises that's prolonged. Without matching intensity and time factors, fat just don't get mobilized sufficiently. However, if you starve yourself after your short duration high intensity exercise, due to a lack of intake, the body will then try to replenish the glycogen store from the fat store during rest. But that's not exactly healthy and is subject to rebound.
For people jumping into an hour of high intensity exercises, the fat energy store doesn't really get activated and glycogen will supply the bulk of energy needs. Fat stores will get activated through low-moderate intensity exercises that's prolonged. Without matching intensity and time factors, fat just don't get mobilized sufficiently. However, if you starve yourself after your short duration high intensity exercise, due to a lack of intake, the body will then try to replenish the glycogen store from the fat store during rest. But that's not exactly healthy and is subject to rebound.
-
mikesbytes
- Posts: 6991
- Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
- Location: Tempe
- Contact:
So let's give Fen Fen a go...
I was going to try and get into a simple explaination of it all, but i'll just end up getting into way more detail than is needed. So just a few points.
Fat is used less for energy at higher intensities as it cannot be broken down fast enough to meet the energy requirements, while carbohydrates (glucose) can be broken down much faster.
Glycogen(glucose storage form in body) and Fat are NOT equal. Fat is a much more efficient storage form than Glycogen. Fat can provide 38Joules/gram compared to 16Joules/gram for Glycogen.
Going into storage in the body will get too complicated, so i'm not going to go into that. But as for losing weight, the way i see it is, if you use more energy than you replace, then your body will find a supply in your body, meaning weight loss. Not that that's important to this topic.
As for James ride, the best i can guess is his fast energy supply (available carbs) were depleted, so his body was forced to slow so the energy demand was much lower and could be met through other energy soucres (fat). Why the energy store became depleted is something we're not going to find out.
I think that'll do for now. Anything you really want to know more about, let me know, and i'll see what i can cover for you.
Fat is used less for energy at higher intensities as it cannot be broken down fast enough to meet the energy requirements, while carbohydrates (glucose) can be broken down much faster.
Glycogen(glucose storage form in body) and Fat are NOT equal. Fat is a much more efficient storage form than Glycogen. Fat can provide 38Joules/gram compared to 16Joules/gram for Glycogen.
Going into storage in the body will get too complicated, so i'm not going to go into that. But as for losing weight, the way i see it is, if you use more energy than you replace, then your body will find a supply in your body, meaning weight loss. Not that that's important to this topic.
As for James ride, the best i can guess is his fast energy supply (available carbs) were depleted, so his body was forced to slow so the energy demand was much lower and could be met through other energy soucres (fat). Why the energy store became depleted is something we're not going to find out.
I think that'll do for now. Anything you really want to know more about, let me know, and i'll see what i can cover for you.
The only thing that I can thing of that may have had an effect on my ability on Sunday was dehydration.
I didn't ride on Friday, and pretty much just stayed at home, typically when I am at home, I don't drink as much compared to being at work.
Then on Saturdays ride, I didn't drink a lot, I think I only went through 2 bidons on the entire 106km ride. Then again, I probably didn't drink a lot in the afternoon.
I do remember starting out and drinking a lot of water, I think I had pretty much gone through 1 bidon by the time I got to Waterfall, not something I would have expected to do.
Does anyone know if dehydration can have an effect on performance like this?
James
I didn't ride on Friday, and pretty much just stayed at home, typically when I am at home, I don't drink as much compared to being at work.
Then on Saturdays ride, I didn't drink a lot, I think I only went through 2 bidons on the entire 106km ride. Then again, I probably didn't drink a lot in the afternoon.
I do remember starting out and drinking a lot of water, I think I had pretty much gone through 1 bidon by the time I got to Waterfall, not something I would have expected to do.
Does anyone know if dehydration can have an effect on performance like this?
James
Sure can. If you do a Google on "deyhydration and bonk", there are plenty of hits describing similar.
-
mikesbytes
- Posts: 6991
- Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
- Location: Tempe
- Contact:
James, another possibility is that, as you seem to be getting faster and faster, you may of got to a point where the body shut down conversion of fat to glycogen and focused purely on the remaining glycogen reserves.
Not likely to be the case, as Fat does not directly convert to Glycogen, and would not be going through a process of creating Glycogen during exercise, since Glycogen is only a storage form.James, another possibility is that, as you seem to be getting faster and faster, you may of got to a point where the body shut down conversion of fat to glycogen and focused purely on the remaining glycogen reserves.
Dehydration sounds like a possibility, though i don't have much info on exactly how the body is affected.
The cardiovascular system transports all the essential molecules (glucose/oxygen etc) during physical activities, and dehydration (hypovolaemia) lowers the CV performance. It certainly won't help when you've exhausted the muscle store of glycogen as from then on, your muscles are solely dependent on the glucose transported through the blood stream. And then there's the dependence on blood to remove all the metabolic waste products.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest