MoAlpha

I thought I posted a link to the free full text. PM if you want me to send it to you.

Russ Roth

GCN does a nice piece on how not all calories are exactly the same, this should be the right video on it Part of it is that how calories are measured for the purpose of labeling isn't fully accurate, but also how quickly or easily the body can burn certain ones also has an effect.

OP, Iride01 has it for not expecting to see real results. On Jan 1 I weighed 283lbs, 5 months later I've finally gotten down to 278, in between I even went up to 286. But every month I use a body imaging scanner, its shown a steady decrease in fat mass and a steady increase in muscle mass. The actual body measurements continue to bear this out. I've had to drop a size in shorts, while my t-shirts are becoming baggy though not yet to the point I can drop a full size there. Especially when increasing exercise, weight won't always drop, look to see where there might be other improvements.

MinnMan

A few of us have jobs that give us access to pretty much the entire spectrum of relevant journals. It's a nice perk, at least for me, as the journals we are discussing here are quite far from those I actually need for my professional pursuits. It's nice that I can access them anyway. And quote from them here in lengths that don't exceed fair use.

Polaris OBark

The pdf as an attachment

Polaris OBark

Nice to see it starts with a Karl Popper lesson ...

Hondo Gravel

Lost only 3 pounds after 1,000 miles due to needing the calories to push the pedals. Hard part losing weight cycling is being in the constant state of hunger.

terrymorse 

Or there's always sci-hub, if you're okay with that sort of thing.

Iride01 

I think some are using the term Calorie to mean something they eat as part of their diet. When some are saying there are good Calories and bad Calories, they are really saying there are good foods to get your Calories from and bad foods to get your Calories from. But in itself, a Calorie is a Calorie. It can't be bad or good in itself.

There are good carb's and good fats. And bad carb's and bad fats. Good carb's are nutritionally dense with all sorts of nutrients. Bad carbs are lacking a lot of nutrients. Similar for fats and proteins.

And actually even the previous good carbs and bad carbs is somewhat wrong too. As foods usually contain a mix of carbs, fats and proteins. Some are just thought of as one because they tend to be very high in that one category of carbohydrate, fat or protein. So really it's back to what foods are nutritionally dense and what are not. And is it ever okay to use a food that is not nutritionally dense.

MoAlpha

This paper is open access, so that’s not a problem. Incidentally, all NIH-funded research has to be freely available within one year of publication. Either the journal has to make it open access or the author has to post the full text to Pubmed. Compliance is pretty good from what I’ve seen.

MinnMan

It is true that what you eat is important and simply the total number of calories you consume is not the only measure of whether your diet is "healthy", but that's not what has been asserted in this thread. Rather, it has been alleged that different types of calories have different implications for weight gain/loss, and this alone is simply untrue, with the exception that not all caloric content of your food is necessarily absorbed by your GI system.

Jughed

(I'm no doc or scientist, but the following is from my personal experience and learning about the condition)

We are making an assumption here that people can burn the calories they consume.

What about insulin resistance? Considering that close to 40+% of Americans have IR, many on their way to T2...

IR in many causes large spikes in insulin when carbs are consumed, and since the body can't process the carbs as energy - they float freely in the blood stream and in turn get stored as fat. This could lead to a case of certain types calories consumed that are not burned, rather stored.

If you can't utilize/burn the calories you consume, and just about 1/2 of us have issues with this, the body can store them as fat.

In a normal functioning body - I agree. Calories are calories. But in a dysfunctional body - I don't agree.

MinnMan

ALL calories consumed and absorbed are either burned as energy or ultimately stored as fat. The amount of fat that is stored is proportional to the excess calories - no matter whether those calories are consumed originally as carbs, fat, or protein - to the tune of approximatley 1 lb =3500 caloires, which is the caloric content of fat.

Insulin resistance is a reason for somebody to avoid sugar spikes, but the weight gain formula doesn't change.
Also, something I should have mentioned previously is that it takes a fair amount of energy to break down proteins, meaning your GI system burns energy to break them down. So in fact, calories eaten as protein produce a little less weight gain/calorie. But very few diets includes a large fraction of total calorie intake as protein....

MoAlpha

I don't remember the reason, but I recall reading that carbohydrates are more fat-o-genic in T2DM and that glycogen formation is inhibited.

ScottCommutes

A couple things. First, biking 10 miles doesn't burn a lot of calories at all on the scale of what your body burns each day. Second, with any exercise, your body will try to adapt to the exertion by trying to squeeze in rest and relaxation that takes away substantially from its fat burning effect.

For many people, cycling is a sit down low-intensity endeavor. My suggestion is to cycle A LOT such that you burn those calories and also develop the physical fitness to burn more calories per hour by going faster for longer. The more fit you are, the faster you can burn calories.

PeteHski

I don’t see much correlation between my weight and how much riding I do. For me it’s all about the calories. Cycling massively improves my aerobic fitness and general wellbeing, but good nutrition keeps my weight stable.

Iride01 

I agree. But what those others are asserting seems to be more nutrition and diet related than it is anything about Calories expended while riding. And I don't know that the OP wanted to talk about changing whatever their diet is.

So to me this is more about what type cycling will burn a larger proportion of Calories from fat stores as opposed to Calories from other stores in the body. Not so much what foods might be better for weight loss, which doesn't even require a bike ride.

Black wallnut 

Links behind a paywall are less than useless! How about the cliff notes version.

MoAlpha

I swear it wasn't paywalled when I found it, but others have had access problems too. Try the link in Post #29 and I'll try to find a workaround.

terrymorse 

Carbs vs. fat burning during exercise is certainly something to think about for performance, but regarding body weight gain/loss, I don't think it matters. That's just about energy balance (or imbalance).

MoAlpha

This is correct.

Iride01 

Glycogen is stored as 3 or 4 parts water to one part glycogen. So when that glycogen gets used, I assume the water get's sweated out or otherwise eliminated. So that might be a large part of any weight loss during a ride. Then when the glycogen stores are topped back up during the time between rides, the weight is right back up there where it was before. The body is going to replete it's glycogen stores to the level it wishes to maintain. No amount of exercise with make that be less. Other than temporarily when you exercise.

Body fat is about 3700 to 3800 Calories per pound. 10 - 30% of that pound is water and other stuff. When we ride our bikes, about the best we can hope for is that some of our Calories expended are from fat. I'd doubt fat is ever the predominant source of fuel though at times it might be the majority. So it's going to take a lot of time on the bike to expend enough Calories to get rid of that one pound of fat. If we assume 50/50 glycogen Calorie and Fat Calorie expenditure, then that's something like 11.6 hours of cycling to get rid of that one pound of body fat.

A hours long ride might not even be using much fat at all as it takes some time for the body to ramp up the fat conversion to energy to meet the current demand. Glycogen is going to get used even though the exercise may not be intense enough to be anerobic. And glycogen will be repleted after the exercise bringing back with it all that 3 to 4 parts of water and it's weight.

MoAlpha

Consumed glycogen isn't reconstituted by magic. The process is a big sink for dietary carbohydrate, such that, under conditions of calorie restriction, the body has to scrounge energy from other stores, i.e. fat. Hence, if you cut energy intake, you can burn fat after a workout during which fat consumption may have been negligible.

RH Clark

Here is a good explanation of how different foods can modify the calories in calories out equation.

Iride01 

I'm not saying that glycogen is reconstituted by magic. I didn't think I even talked about how it is replenished.

MoAlpha

Apologies if I misunderstood. I interpreted your comment as implying that glycolysis doesn't result in consumption of stored fat in the face of calorie restriction.