|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Cole wrote:
"Terry Morse" wrote: Cycling on the road, as opposed to a stationary bike, induces vibration, and vibration increases bone density: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/h...ish_343550.htm If that's true, then mountain biking should be even better. I suspect that you're right. Mountain biking is much rougher -- even on a full suspension. -- terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/ |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 07:56:45 -0700, Terry Morse
wrote: Peter Cole wrote: "Terry Morse" wrote: Cycling on the road, as opposed to a stationary bike, induces vibration, and vibration increases bone density: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/h...ish_343550.htm If that's true, then mountain biking should be even better. I suspect that you're right. Mountain biking is much rougher -- even on a full suspension. I've noticed that mountain biking tends to break bones. Of course, I wasn't very good at it. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"dgk" wrote in message
... On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 07:56:45 -0700, Terry Morse wrote: Peter Cole wrote: "Terry Morse" wrote: Cycling on the road, as opposed to a stationary bike, induces vibration, and vibration increases bone density: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/h...ish_343550.htm If that's true, then mountain biking should be even better. I suspect that you're right. Mountain biking is much rougher -- even on a full suspension. I've noticed that mountain biking tends to break bones. Of course, I wasn't very good at it. No, not true! Well, not after the learning curve period, anyway. I've only broken ribs twice in 7-8 years. Of course there have been many cuts and bruises, and a few bad cases of poison ivy, but I'm not worried about osteoporosis! Seriously, I know as many people who have broken bones on the road as on the trail. I also think trail skills make you a much better (safer) road rider. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
1. There is no annoying gap between walk and jog speed.
2. Most of your energy is spent blowing wind over you. Jogging in Florida (particularly downwind) is torture. I've cycled in the most miserable afternoons, and it only hurts when I stop. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
HardwareLust wrote:
Rush wrote: People usually have dogs, or fences, or you just don't feel comfortable cutting through someone's yard. Don't feel comfortable tresspassing on someone else's property? I certainly would hope so, but that's not a terribly realistic statement. Gotta keep reminding myself, "Do not post when in a bad mood". My apologies to all. Regards, H. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
(gds) wrote:
It isn't that you don't burn fat at higher levels of exertion; what I've understood is that in fact you burn fat even faster at 85% than at 65%. I've read that absolute fat metabolic rate peaks at around 65-70% VO2max, then decreases after that. Here's an excerpt from an article in Velonews: "At about 25 percent VO2 max, an intensity comparable to walking. Eighty percent of the energy is supplied by fat in your blood, and a bit from blood glucose. When your intensity increases to 65 percent VO2 max (a slow ride or run), fat burning is at it's peak, but only 50 percent of the fuel is supplied by fat, and 50 percent from glycogen. About half of the total fat fuel comes from muscle fat. When training increases to 85 percent VO2 max, total fat burning decreases slightly because fat cannot be utilized quickly enough to meet energy needs. Only about 25 percent of this energy comes from fat, mostly from muscle fat. However, highly trained athletes may actually obtain 75 percent of their energy needs from fat when training at 70 percent VO2 max. Endurance athletes are better fat burners ." http://www.velonews.com/train/articles/3543.0.html For those who want to improve their performance on long rides/races, maximizing fat burning is essential to spare glycogen stores. That's supposed to be one of the reasons for doing all the "zone 2" (66-72% of max. heart rate) training in the early season. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Terry Morse wrote in message ...
I've read that absolute fat metabolic rate peaks at around 65-70% VO2max, then decreases after that. Here's an excerpt from an article in Velonews: "At about 25 percent VO2 max, an intensity comparable to walking. Eighty percent of the energy is supplied by fat in your blood, and a bit from blood glucose. When your intensity increases to 65 percent VO2 max (a slow ride or run), fat burning is at it's peak, but only 50 percent of the fuel is supplied by fat, and 50 percent from glycogen. About half of the total fat fuel comes from muscle fat. When training increases to 85 percent VO2 max, total fat burning decreases slightly because fat cannot be utilized quickly enough to meet energy needs. Only about 25 percent of this energy comes from fat, mostly from muscle fat. However, highly trained athletes may actually obtain 75 percent of their energy needs from fat when training at 70 percent VO2 max. Endurance athletes are better fat burners ." http://www.velonews.com/train/articles/3543.0.html For those who want to improve their performance on long rides/races, maximizing fat burning is essential to spare glycogen stores. That's supposed to be one of the reasons for doing all the "zone 2" (66-72% of max. heart rate) training in the early season. OK, but this isn't inconsistent with my point-- I think. The article you quote talks about percentages of total burned attributed to fat. But one still needs to calcualte the absolute amount. So, hypothetically you can burn a smaller percentage from fat but still burn more fat if your total energy consumptuion is higher by enough. I don't have the data at my hands but the algebra certainly works over a large range of values. Anecdotally folks who ride a lot at the cardio level seem to be leaner than folks who train mostly at the fat burning level. A riders tend to be leaner than B who are leaner than C riders etc. So those who are working harder seem to also be able to burn fat pretty well.(Of course total training plays a role here as well as intensity) |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
gds wrote:
The article you quote talks about percentages of total burned attributed to fat. But one still needs to calcualte the absolute amount. So, hypothetically you can burn a smaller percentage from fat but still burn more fat if your total energy consumptuion is higher by enough. I don't have the data at my hands but the algebra certainly works over a large range of values. I've seen the same sort of figures, somewhere, I can't remember where. The thing that sticks out in my mind goes something like: at 65% vo2max, you're burning a higher percentage of fat, but at 75% vo2max, you're burning a lower percentage but a higher total amount of fat and a lot more energy. And IIRC, your energy consumption isn't a linear progression as your percentage of vo2max goes up. Anecdotally folks who ride a lot at the cardio level seem to be leaner than folks who train mostly at the fat burning level. A riders tend to be leaner than B who are leaner than C riders etc. So those who are working harder seem to also be able to burn fat pretty well.(Of course total training plays a role here as well as intensity) Funny how that works, ain't it? *grin* -km -- Only cowards fight kids -- unidentified Moscow protester http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts proud to be owned by a yorkie |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Why riding bikes is a better way to lose weight than jogging. | Rush | General | 50 | October 20th 04 08:41 PM |
First road bike: braking? | Alan Hoyle | General | 47 | September 28th 03 11:40 PM |
FAQ | Just zis Guy, you know? | UK | 27 | September 5th 03 10:58 PM |
Riding to get fit and lose weight: any advice? | Doesnotcompute | UK | 20 | July 25th 03 10:28 AM |