mwaldin

thanks for the education!

pgjackson

At the risk of potentially sending some readers to the hospital with my hard core advice, I have found for me the best exercise to lose weight is high intensity training, not low intensity. FOR ME, exercising at a quick pace for short durations is more effective than long, slow workouts. If you are interested, check out HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training). My best workouts are less than an hour. Instead of plodding along for 2 hours on your bike, try hammering away for a full minute, then back off to an easy pace for 2-3 minutes....then repeat for 30 minutes. Hill repeats are good for this kind of workout. Find a good hill and climb it as fast as your can for a minute or two, then turn around and coast down. Catch your breath for a few moments and then repeat. Long, low intensity workouts do not work for me.

But all of this will not likely result in significant weight loss if you are not controlling your eating. There is an old bodybuilder's saying that "abs are made in the kitchen".

PeteHski

"Sprint 8" is a good example of what you are saying here. I must say it is a very good bang for the buck if you are short of training time. The problem with the plodding along approach is that 2 hours doesn't really cut it. Needs more like double that and more to be effective. For most people the slow plodding approach is impractical because of the sheer time required.

pgjackson

And consistency being key to any workout program, it is a LOT easier to fit a 30 minute workout into the daily schedule than a 2-3 hour session. It's real easy to talk yourself out of a 3 hour workout.

PeteHski

Absolutely. Always best to be realistic about your training volume front the start and then aim to get the most out of that time. For most people that means mostly short, relatively high intensity sessions, although you can over-do it. The Sprint-8 I mentioned is not recommended more than 2-3 times per week.

GhostRider62

Some respond better to volume. No question, few have the time. So, HIIT it is. The TP guy is wrong, if you look at the training of Professionals, they do a ton of volume in the lower zones.....I don't have time to find the reference. So, to say volume is a waste of time is a fool speaking

https://simplifaster.com/articles/ho...le-is-vo2-max/

https://gccoaching.fit/2019/02/18/br...ax-vs-vo2-max/

PeteHski

I very much doubt he’s a fool talking. But maybe he didn’t put enough emphasis on the fact that you have to put in a ton of volume to get a meaningful result from low intensity base training. 16-25 hours a week of base plodding according to Neal Henderson (definitely no fool). So for pretty much anyone who is not a full time pro, there are better balanced strategies. HIIT is the other end of the extreme, but is at least practical. I do something in-between, but always with plenty of intensity all year round.

Henderson says that people typically doing a couple of 2-3 hour low intensity rides per week “base training” throughout the winter months are the ones really wasting their time and would benefit more from some intensity.

GhostRider62

Plodding is the wrong word. Z2/Z3 is not plodding

He is a fool.

PeteHski

Well that’s just your opinion. Not a fact.

I just read your first link and it is interesting. But I don’t think it says how much low intensity work the guy actually had to do to improve his VO2 max by 40% over the 3 years.

GhostRider62

You have a Masters Degree in Engineering? The distribution by zone is there. It ain't hard to figure out.

HIIT is the best that time crunched can do but for JIM RUTBERG to claim that this is useless is untrue. Just look at the distribution of professional cyclists.

PeteHski

Okay if those unlabelled units are hours per week, then he’s doing about 16 hours per week of low intensity volume. Which is no different to what my sources suggest as a minimum for pros to make meaningful gains with that kind of training regime. The 40% gain is also clearly freakish.

genejockey 

Z2/Z3 isn't plodding, it's pleasant.
Z3/Z4 isn't pleasant, it's fun.
Z4/Z5 isn't fun, it's satisfying.

terrymorse 

That conclusion (fasted exercise increases fat metabolism and thus weight loss) is, well, "controversial".

PeteHski

Here is another “fool” attempting to explain the same thing ie long periods of low intensity base training are a waste of time for anyone who doesn’t have 20+ hours per week to train like a professional athlete.

https://thesufferfest.com/blogs/trai...nched-athletes

RH Clark

Everything is controversial to some extent. I would however clarify that I didn't actually say that fasted exercise increases fat metabolism so much as I said that there is no reason for the body to burn fat when both the muscles and stomach are full of fuel.

pgjackson

Some of y'all are trying to be way too scientific. Eat less and exercise is the winning formula. No excuses. Screw all your ish's. Eat fewer calories and exercise more. Dont' make it so complicated.

wolfchild

Any unconventional approach which works and produces positive results is going to be controversial....I've been hammered on these forums many times for saying that I eat instinctively and don't keep track of how many calories I eat and burn and still manage to maintain a lean physique....and yes I also believe in fasted exercise and do it quite regularly...

PeteHski

From what I’ve seen you don’t get hammered for saying that at all. But you do get hammered for saying that doing anything different is pointless.

livedarklions

Actually, I lost about 50 pounds eating more and exercising more, but feel free to state your useless generalities as universal truths. Also, the "winning formula" is maintaining whatever regimen it is that's giving you a healthy balance between calories in and activity, that maintaining is the hard part. It's also a balance that's going to vary a lot from person to person. You and I have the relative luxury of being able to engage in high intensity and/or long duration exercise. Lots of people can't tolerate that for a multitude of legitimate reasons.

One thing I'm sure of is moralizing at people doesn't work and is more important to the ego of the moralizer than to the people it's supposed to be "helping." That no excuses rhetoric has been done to death, and look where we are with obesity in this society. If it really was as simple as you say, that obesity wouldn't be happening.

livedarklions

You're being blasted for insisting that that approach will work for everyone. No one is blasting you for doing what you do. You're getting blasted for telling people what they're doing is wrong because it's not the way you do it.

You seem incapable of understanding that a massive amount of this is genetic, and you seem to think everyone has the same genes as you do.

GhostRider62

True fasting is not good for performance. Going on an endurance ride before break fast certainly helps build mitochondria in size and density and some would consider this intermittent fasting but that is just semantics. A bigger aerobic engine makes you go faster. Going faster requires more fuel. Burning more fuel generally helps lose excessive fat storage. Those pesky mitochondria take a lot of tending to as we get older. There are lots and lots of ways to get and keep them mitochondria humming........I would contend that weight loss really should focus on correcting one's faulty biochemistry and to stop putting the wrong materials into one's mouth

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3883043/

pgjackson

No it really is that easy. Of course there are medical issues that should be taken into consideration, but for the huge majority of humanity eating less and exercising is the best way to lose weight if that is your goal. We have an obesity problem because of the amounts and types of food people choose to eat. Self control is difficult. I assure you more people have been helped through what you call moralizing than by overcomplicated, touchy-feely weight loss fads.

RH Clark

Not just calories in VS calories used. Types of foods absolutely do matter and too many people have no clue because too many simply preach to eat less and exercise more. I went from a 50 year old 6'2 360lb man to a 53 year old 180lb man, not by eating less and exercising more, but by eating different types of food. Yes ,I did eventually get to the point where I ate less and exercised more but that simple mantra had failed me for 50 years. In one sense it is true to tell an obese person that they need to eat less and exercise more, but you might as well tell them that they need to lose weight for all the good it will likely do. Fasting, and low carb work because it will actually teach someone how to eat healthier type foods and eat less. Exercise should also be key to any weight loss program ,but personally, I had to drop about 80 pounds before I could do any effective exercise.

MoAlpha

The answer to substance dependence is simple: Just stop using the stuff and live normally for the rest of your life.

NomarsGirl

I don't recommend this method, but I had a serious health issue that resulted in a nearly complete loss of appetite. I lost more than 50 pounds in a month. (I wasn't eating at all). Now, people just tell me that I look great. No one asks if I'm OK. (I'm really not) I finally look like a cyclilst.