HEART RATE

On Apr 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:



"Ben C" wrote in message

. ..

On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich cyclintom@yahoo wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
[...]
On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
with speed. You are american engineer yes?

As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula.
However,
the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed
but
in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is
reduced.

Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
quite a bit more.

Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.

Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
minutes and 742 Calories.

However, let's use some reasonable numbers:

15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at Analytical
Cyclist.

That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower rider and 496
watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That all sounds OK
until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat whereas the
slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.

Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight unless the
distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can lose weight on
much shorter rides.

Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
seems to work well at reducing weight.

I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.

Indeed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

all my information indicates you are correct; fat burning is a
biological process, not a mechanical one, energy requirements for
different speeds do not equate to fat burning on a one-to-one basis
eg. although mathematically it takes more energy to go faster that
does not mean the energy is derived solely from body fat

As you state, mathematically, you burn more calories with a harder
effort over an equal period of time. It is true that going slower you
will tap your fat sources while going faster you will burn glycogen.

"But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)


if you spend more calories than you consume, at some point your body
will have to produce energy out of something. It will be transforming
your stored fat into energy at a later time of the day. So, let's say
that during the day you engulf 3000 calories. You do an easy ride and
you only burn fat. That day's total caloric expenditure is 3000
calories. Then, you don't gain or lose weight. The food that you eat
during the day that doesn't get burned will get stored as fat.

OTOH, lets say that you did a hard ride and that day's total caloric
expenditure is 3200 calories, and you only eat 3,000 calories. While
it is true that while you were riding, you mostly burn glycogen,
you'll end up with a caloric deficit of 200. So, later that day, while
you are watching a movie, typing nonsense on a discussion group or
napping, you will need to burn 200 calories of stored fat to make up
for the difference. So, if you are aiming to lose weight. The more
calories you burn, the better, provided that you eat the same.

Some caveats to this: If you ride harder, you may be hungrier and go
home and eat an elephant instead of a salad. So, you may end up eating
more calories. Also, when you ride hard, you need to eat more to
sustain your glycogen store. Otherwise you'll bonk. On the other hand,
riding harder puts more strain on your muscles and requires that the
body use protein to help rebuild and recover muscles. This increases
calorie consumption. But, after a hard ride you may need to nap for a
week and eat a daily cow. After a long easy ride, you may wake up the
next day feeling fresh and ready to do another long "fat burning ride"

So physiologically, the harder you ride the more calories you burn and
ultimately the more fat you'll burn if you consume the same amount of
calories. However, there are all kinds of variables.

There used to be a really cool dude called Andy Coggan who used to
post here. He could provide all kinds of really good scientific
explanations for us to indulge in.

Andres

On Apr 12, 11:36*am, " wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:





On Apr 11, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Ben C" wrote in message

. ..

On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich cyclintom@yahoo wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
[...]
On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
with speed. You are american engineer yes?

As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula.
However,
the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed
but
in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is
reduced.

Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
quite a bit more.

Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.

Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
minutes and 742 Calories.

However, let's use some reasonable numbers:

15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at Analytical
Cyclist.

That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower rider and 496
watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That all sounds OK
until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat whereas the
slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.

Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight unless the
distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can lose weight on
much shorter rides.

Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
seems to work well at reducing weight.

I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.

Indeed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

all my information indicates you are correct; fat burning is a
biological process, not a mechanical one, energy requirements for
different speeds do not equate to fat burning on a one-to-one basis
eg. although mathematically it takes more energy to go faster that
does not mean the energy is derived solely from body fat

As you state, mathematically, you burn more calories with a harder
effort over an equal period of time. It is true that going slower you
will tap your fat sources while going faster you will burn glycogen.

* * *"But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)

if you spend more calories than you consume, at some point your body
will have to produce energy out of something. It will be transforming
your stored fat into energy at a later time of the day. So, let's say
that during the day you engulf 3000 calories. You do an easy ride and
you only burn fat. That day's total caloric expenditure is 3000
calories. Then, you don't gain or lose weight. The food that you eat
during the day that doesn't get burned will get stored as fat.

OTOH, lets say that you did a hard ride and that day's total caloric
expenditure is 3200 calories, and you only eat 3,000 calories. While
it is true that while you were riding, you mostly burn glycogen,
you'll end up with a caloric deficit of 200. So, later that day, while
you are watching a movie, typing nonsense on a discussion group or
napping, you will need to burn 200 calories of stored fat to make up
for the difference. So, if you are aiming to lose weight. The more
calories you burn, the better, provided that you eat the same.

Some caveats to this: If you ride harder, you may be hungrier and go
home and eat an elephant instead of a salad. So, you may end up eating
more calories. Also, when you ride hard, you need to eat more to
sustain your glycogen store. Otherwise you'll bonk. On the other hand,
riding harder puts more strain on your muscles and requires that the
body use protein to help rebuild and recover muscles. This increases
calorie consumption. But, after a hard ride you may need to nap for a
week and eat a daily cow. After a long easy ride, you may wake up the
next day feeling fresh and ready to do another long "fat burning ride"

So physiologically, the harder you ride the more calories you burn and
ultimately the more fat you'll burn if you consume the same amount of
calories. However, there are all kinds of variables.

There used to be a really cool dude called Andy Coggan who used to
post here. He could provide all kinds of really good scientific
explanations for us to indulge in.

Andres- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree with what you say here-

but say 50kms 1 hr takes 1000 calories
fat as fuel provides 200 calories per hour- 200 calories from fat

50 kms 2 hrs takes 800 calories- 400 calories from fat

On Apr 12, 9:36 am, " wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:



On Apr 11, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Ben C" wrote in message

. ..

On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich cyclintom@yahoo wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
[...]
On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
with speed. You are american engineer yes?

As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula.
However,
the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed
but
in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is
reduced.

Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
quite a bit more.

Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.

Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
minutes and 742 Calories.

However, let's use some reasonable numbers:

15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at Analytical
Cyclist.

That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower rider and 496
watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That all sounds OK
until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat whereas the
slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.

Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight unless the
distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can lose weight on
much shorter rides.

Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
seems to work well at reducing weight.

I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.

Indeed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

all my information indicates you are correct; fat burning is a
biological process, not a mechanical one, energy requirements for
different speeds do not equate to fat burning on a one-to-one basis
eg. although mathematically it takes more energy to go faster that
does not mean the energy is derived solely from body fat

As you state, mathematically, you burn more calories with a harder
effort over an equal period of time. It is true that going slower you
will tap your fat sources while going faster you will burn glycogen.

"But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)

if you spend more calories than you consume, at some point your body
will have to produce energy out of something. It will be transforming
your stored fat into energy at a later time of the day. So, let's say
that during the day you engulf 3000 calories. You do an easy ride and
you only burn fat. That day's total caloric expenditure is 3000
calories. Then, you don't gain or lose weight. The food that you eat
during the day that doesn't get burned will get stored as fat.

OTOH, lets say that you did a hard ride and that day's total caloric
expenditure is 3200 calories, and you only eat 3,000 calories. While
it is true that while you were riding, you mostly burn glycogen,
you'll end up with a caloric deficit of 200. So, later that day, while
you are watching a movie, typing nonsense on a discussion group or
napping, you will need to burn 200 calories of stored fat to make up
for the difference. So, if you are aiming to lose weight. The more
calories you burn, the better, provided that you eat the same.

Some caveats to this: If you ride harder, you may be hungrier and go
home and eat an elephant instead of a salad. So, you may end up eating
more calories. Also, when you ride hard, you need to eat more to
sustain your glycogen store. Otherwise you'll bonk. On the other hand,
riding harder puts more strain on your muscles and requires that the
body use protein to help rebuild and recover muscles. This increases
calorie consumption. But, after a hard ride you may need to nap for a
week and eat a daily cow. After a long easy ride, you may wake up the
next day feeling fresh and ready to do another long "fat burning ride"

So physiologically, the harder you ride the more calories you burn and
ultimately the more fat you'll burn if you consume the same amount of
calories. However, there are all kinds of variables.

There used to be a really cool dude called Andy Coggan who used to
post here. He could provide all kinds of really good scientific
explanations for us to indulge in.


Last fall (~six or seven months ago) I weighed ~215+ pounds (I am
around 5' 11"), and was driving my car to work. My work is relatively
sedentary. I was having big hungry man lunches and dinners, and two -
three (or four) beers on most days.

I had started my working life with very active labor at age 14. Over
the decades my occupations have grown gradually but progressively less
active, and my metabolism was apparently changing as well (I am ~46
years old).

First I just stopped eating. That's right - no food - quit cold
turkey (so to speak). I would just starve myself until I couldn't
take it, try to go longer, and then eat a little of something that I
figured my body could use. I was already using the stairs at work
(5th floor), but started going farther up and down - and more often.

I somehow managed to get down to about 185 pounds without dying.
(Actually, I feel a lot better now.)

I live ~25 miles from work, with a splendid mix of short and long up
and down grades, a couple of what you might call actual hills, and
good road shoulders all the way. I had ridden my '86 Trek 400 all the
way once or twice, and did a partway park-and-ride thing quite a bit,
but didn't get serious until this month.

Last month I put $100 down on a really nice workstand and bucket of
tools. The first of April I got paid and went to pay off the tools.
While I was there I also bought the guy's absolutely immaculate '87
Stumpjumper Comp :-) This put me in the financial doghouse, sort of,
what with taxes due and money needed for other things this month.

So I stopped buying gasoline, stopped paying for parking, stopped
buying beer, put fenders on my Trek, and started riding to and from
work - using a bus w/ front-end rack partway sometimes. It's about
two hours each way without the bus. If I do take the bus it's still
about 40 minutes pedaling (each way). Yesterday I was down to around
181 pounds, the rain stopped, and I feel great besides!

I don't measure my heart rate or anything like that. (I do remember
the first time I climbed over the steepest hill and wondered if I
would be able to turn on and dial my cell phone in the event of a
heart attack.) I ride because I love to ride - always have since I
was eight years old. I don't push myself constantly for a workout,
either. I push myself sometimes - either for the workout and/or
because I want to make good time, but a lot of the time I just keep
pedaling and use whatever gearing I need to keep going in reasonable
comfort. However I ride it's got to be better than sitting in the
car. In fact, I think maybe mixing up the degree of work like this
could be optimum activity (particularly at my age :-)

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:49:07 +0200, Donald Munro wrote:

Andrew Price wrote:
I was always told the rule of thumb was "220 less your age" - until I
came across this formula today:

210 - (half age in years) - (0.11*(weight in kg)) + 4

Does it take relativistic effects into account ?

You mean like "all my relatives have had heart attacks by my age?"

On Apr 12, 7:57*pm, wrote:
On Apr 12, 11:36*am, " wrote:



On Apr 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:

On Apr 11, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Ben C" wrote in message

. ..

On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich cyclintom@yahoo wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
[...]
On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
with speed. You are american engineer yes?

As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula.
However,
the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed
but
in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is
reduced.

Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
quite a bit more.

Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.

Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
minutes and 742 Calories.

However, let's use some reasonable numbers:

15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at Analytical
Cyclist.

That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower rider and 496
watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That all sounds OK
until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat whereas the
slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.

Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight unless the
distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can lose weight on
much shorter rides.

Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
seems to work well at reducing weight.

I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.

Indeed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

all my information indicates you are correct; fat burning is a
biological process, not a mechanical one, energy requirements for
different speeds do not equate to fat burning on a one-to-one basis
eg. although mathematically it takes more energy to go faster that
does not mean the energy is derived solely from body fat

As you state, mathematically, you burn more calories with a harder
effort over an equal period of time. It is true that going slower you
will tap your fat sources while going faster you will burn glycogen.

* * *"But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)

if you spend more calories than you consume, at some point your body
will have to produce energy out of something. It will be transforming
your stored fat into energy at a later time of the day. So, let's say
that during the day you engulf 3000 calories. You do an easy ride and
you only burn fat. That day's total caloric expenditure is 3000
calories. Then, you don't gain or lose weight. The food that you eat
during the day that doesn't get burned will get stored as fat.

OTOH, lets say that you did a hard ride and that day's total caloric
expenditure is 3200 calories, and you only eat 3,000 calories. While
it is true that while you were riding, you mostly burn glycogen,
you'll end up with a caloric deficit of 200. So, later that day, while
you are watching a movie, typing nonsense on a discussion group or
napping, you will need to burn 200 calories of stored fat to make up
for the difference. So, if you are aiming to lose weight. The more
calories you burn, the better, provided that you eat the same.

Some caveats to this: If you ride harder, you may be hungrier and go
home and eat an elephant instead of a salad. So, you may end up eating
more calories. Also, when you ride hard, you need to eat more to
sustain your glycogen store. Otherwise you'll bonk. On the other hand,
riding harder puts more strain on your muscles and requires that the
body use protein to help rebuild and recover muscles. This increases
calorie consumption. But, after a hard ride you may need to nap for a
week and eat a daily cow. After a long easy ride, you may wake up the
next day feeling fresh and ready to do another long "fat burning ride"

So physiologically, the harder you ride the more calories you burn and
ultimately the more fat you'll burn if you consume the same amount of
calories. However, there are all kinds of variables.

There used to be a really cool dude called Andy Coggan who used to
post here. He could provide all kinds of really good scientific
explanations for us to indulge in.

Andres- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree with what you say here-

but say 50kms 1 hr takes 1000 calories
fat as fuel provides 200 calories per hour- 200 calories from fat

50 kms 2 hrs takes 800 calories- 400 calories from fat

50km/h for 1 hour is more like 1900 calories. 20% gives 380 calories
from fat.

25km/h for 2 hours is 650 calories, 40% from fat is 260.

Joseph

aka Andres Muro wrote:
[...]
"But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)

butbutbut, gene actually writes "butbutbut".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Ben C? wrote:
On 2008-04-12, Tom Sherman wrote:
[...]
When I was a graduate student TA teaching civil engineering materials
laboratory classes, I told the students that confusing "cement" and
"concrete" was completely unacceptable.

So what are roads made of?

Here we have broadly two kinds of road. The first kind are grey or
reddish-grey, formed from slabs noticeably joined up every 50 to 100
metres, are noisy to drive on and produce a lot of spray when it's
raining. But they apparently last forever. We call those "concrete".

From the description I would say continuously reinforced Portland
cement concrete. The slab will crack at fairly small intervals (2-4
meters) but the reinforcement will keep the resulting joints from moving
relative to each other. The larger joints at the 50 to 100-meter spacing
are to allow for thermal expansion without buckling the pavement.

The other kind are smooth, black, much quieter and have more grip, but
seem to need more frequent resurfacing. We still call those "tarmac"
although they aren't really tarmacadam. I think this second material is
properly called "asphalt concrete". But what about the first one?

Yes, the second pavement is asphaltic concrete, which is primarily
aggregate bound together with a relatively small fraction of petroleum
derived asphalt.

I would be interested in the source of aggregate for the asphaltic
concrete that provides better grip when wet. Where I live the aggregate
sources are primarily carbonate sedimentary rocks, and these provide
much poorer traction when wet than the brush finish Portland cement
concrete pavements do.

The asphaltic concrete pavements also have the disadvantage of having a
visco-elastic binder, so ruts develop in the vehicle tracks over time
that lead to greater water depths on the road.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

On Apr 12, 1:24*pm, "
wrote:
On Apr 12, 7:57*pm, wrote:





On Apr 12, 11:36*am, " wrote:

On Apr 11, 8:33 pm, wrote:

On Apr 11, 8:15 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Ben C" wrote in message

. ..

On 2008-04-11, Tom Kunich cyclintom@yahoo wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Apr 11, 3:37 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
[...]
On flat road weight is perpendicular to movement an then is not part
of work. Work = Force x Distance. What you ignore is having need for
horizontal force to overcome air resistance. Such force is not linear
with speed. You are american engineer yes?

As I already noted, my apologies for mis-writing the ideal formula.
However,
the effects are the same. Going FASTER increases air resistance indeed
but
in the speed regime of bicyclists the increase isn't a large amount and
going faster gets you where you're going sooner hence the time is
reduced.

Total energy required to complete a given journey at a higher speed is
quite a bit more.

Using one of those cycling calculators, a 30km flat ride at a leisurely
100W takes 75 minutes and expends 552 Calories.

Double your power over the ride to a strenuous 200W, and it takes 57
minutes and 742 Calories.

However, let's use some reasonable numbers:

15 mph for 30 miles vs 20 mph using the default numbers at Analytical
Cyclist.

That comes to something like 427 watt/hrs for the slower rider and 496
watt/hrs or some 16% more power for the faster rider. That all sounds OK
until you consider that the faster rider is NOT burning fat whereas the
slower rider is probably burning quite a bit of fat.

Look, when I was riding fast I simply didn't lose weight unless the
distances were over 80 miles per day. Riding slower I can lose weight on
much shorter rides.

Most long term cyclists have recognized that they don't lose weight
going fast unless they're covering large distances and eating poorly.
And yet riding moderate speeds over relatively moderate distances
seems to work well at reducing weight.

I think as someone already said you don't burn so much fat if you go too
fast-- it's too slow a process to get the energy out of it.

Indeed.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

all my information indicates you are correct; fat burning is a
biological process, not a mechanical one, energy requirements for
different speeds do not equate to fat burning on a one-to-one basis
eg. although mathematically it takes more energy to go faster that
does not mean the energy is derived solely from body fat

As you state, mathematically, you burn more calories with a harder
effort over an equal period of time. It is true that going slower you
will tap your fat sources while going faster you will burn glycogen.

* * *"But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)

if you spend more calories than you consume, at some point your body
will have to produce energy out of something. It will be transforming
your stored fat into energy at a later time of the day. So, let's say
that during the day you engulf 3000 calories. You do an easy ride and
you only burn fat. That day's total caloric expenditure is 3000
calories. Then, you don't gain or lose weight. The food that you eat
during the day that doesn't get burned will get stored as fat.

OTOH, lets say that you did a hard ride and that day's total caloric
expenditure is 3200 calories, and you only eat 3,000 calories. While
it is true that while you were riding, you mostly burn glycogen,
you'll end up with a caloric deficit of 200. So, later that day, while
you are watching a movie, typing nonsense on a discussion group or
napping, you will need to burn 200 calories of stored fat to make up
for the difference. So, if you are aiming to lose weight. The more
calories you burn, the better, provided that you eat the same.

Some caveats to this: If you ride harder, you may be hungrier and go
home and eat an elephant instead of a salad. So, you may end up eating
more calories. Also, when you ride hard, you need to eat more to
sustain your glycogen store. Otherwise you'll bonk. On the other hand,
riding harder puts more strain on your muscles and requires that the
body use protein to help rebuild and recover muscles. This increases
calorie consumption. But, after a hard ride you may need to nap for a
week and eat a daily cow. After a long easy ride, you may wake up the
next day feeling fresh and ready to do another long "fat burning ride"

So physiologically, the harder you ride the more calories you burn and
ultimately the more fat you'll burn if you consume the same amount of
calories. However, there are all kinds of variables.

There used to be a really cool dude called Andy Coggan who used to
post here. He could provide all kinds of really good scientific
explanations for us to indulge in.

Andres- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree with what you say here-

but say 50kms 1 hr takes 1000 calories
fat as fuel provides 200 calories per hour- 200 calories from fat

50 kms 2 hrs takes 800 calories- 400 calories from fat

50km/h for 1 hour is more like 1900 calories. 20% gives 380 calories
from fat.

25km/h for 2 hours is 650 calories, 40% from fat is 260.

Joseph- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

the actual caloric requirements were simplified off the top of my head
for the sake of the arguement; the fact is the rate of synthesis of
body fat into blood glucose is a fairly stable total sum eg not a
percentage of a total requirement; 1 hr riding with 200 calories
provided from metabolisim of body fat is less than 2 hours of riding
with an equivalent rate of body fat metabolised to provide the caloric
requirement; the rest comes from liver stores (about 3 hrs worth below
AT effort) beyond that you have to provide on the road or you will
bonk.

On Apr 12, 12:28 pm, Tom Sherman
wrote:
aka Andres Muro wrote: [...]
"But, but, but......." (Daniels, G., 2000-2008)

butbutbut, gene actually writes "butbutbut".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

Oh, Oh I misquoted.

On Apr 12, 8:06*am, Tom Sherman
wrote:
See the discussion of "alloy" in another thread. *As far back as the
late '60s, the Beverly Hillbillies documented the fact that the common
vernacular uses "cement" as a synonym for "Portland-cement-based
concrete" the same way that "asphalt" (the specific cementing agent in
asphaltic concrete) has become the shorthand for the other form. *The
battle for precision was lost long ago; the paradigm has shifted.

Should we let a bad 1960's television show determine the language? Is
there a civilized planet I can emigrate to?

Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

the cee-ment pond ? the beverly hillbillies represented a hilarious
pinacle for broadcast comedy- I'l never forget granny swnging around
on ropes cleaning the kitchen; or how about jethro's "car wash"...
don't call tbh bad comedy; if you need an example of bad comedy maybe
you could refer to a cnn broadcast instead