Originally Posted by
hubcyclist
. But I think casual cyclists who by virtue of being slower (lower watts=lower kj) have fewer caloric demands believe they have to subscribe to this high end carb consumption (even on up to 3hr rides).
I remain convinced that a lot of cyclists "bonk" because of being undertrained for certain levels of endurance as opposed to any major nutritional deficiencies on rides. I obviously believe folks need to fuel for the demands of a ride, but I also think some folks who might be trying to use cycling for weight loss might be frustrated that they're not making a dent in their weight because they take on as many calories as they're expending on a ride (and eat off the bike as if they burned off a ton).
Anyhow, I'm interested in the topic, I think there has to be a reasonable counterbalance to the "eat a ton" mentality that I think is overused.
Right. The slower you are (or the less watts you put out), the less energy used. Someone averaging 150 watts (still a lot higher than many recreational riders) is not going to be burning through a bunch of a calories.
As I mentioned before, a 276 watt average is 1000 calories an hour. Most people aren't even remotely close to that, and those that are are typically well aware of their nutritional demands.