# Significant energy depletion...Need some nutritional advice, please



## skhan007 (May 18, 2012)

Hello All, I'm currently riding about 30-50 miles regular and hope to be making my way up to my first century rides. Half-Centuries have proven to be successful for the few that I've done, thus far. I'm working on increasing my steady cadence, endurance during climbs, and over all endurance on long rides. My problem is that I'm typically running out of energy regularly. I'd say the last 15-20 miles of a 50 mile ride, I'm out of steam. 

The obvious might be going too hard out of the gate and not pacing myself, so I've been mindful of that. But I'm thinking that I'm not eating enough. I'm 6'1" and about 166-167 lbs. right now. 

I'm thinking about signing up for Sufferfest videos and doing additional indoor training between rides, hoping this will help me to manage my pace, output, and overall endurance. The piece that I'm not clear about is what I should be eating pre-rides, post-rides, how much, etc. I can admit that I eat healthy, but probably not enough. But I'm not sure of this.


----------



## brianmcg (Oct 12, 2002)

1. How many calories do you eat per day?
2. How many calories do you eat pre-ride?
3. How many calories do you eat during the ride? And how many bottles of fluid?

if you don't know that is part ofyour problem.

Do you ride with a heart rate monitor?


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

Measure rides by hours, not miles. Your stomach does not know how many miles you've ridden.

I can do a three hour morning ride on a good breakfast. Any longer and I need to eat. Many people would need to eat for 2+ hour rides. About 200-250 calories/hour, starting after an hour (assuming a good breakfast). A good breakfast would be a little protein and mostly complex carbs, little sugar. Real oatmeal not the sugar-laden instant junk is one example of a good breakfast.

Don't forget to drink. Depending on the heat, length of ride and your physiology you may need electrolytes too.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Eat after 60-90 minutes and every hour after that. 

You can go out and ride a century tomorrow if you eat enough. For simply completing longer rides, nutrition is more important than training.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

skhan007 said:


> Hello All, I'm currently riding about 30-50 miles regular and hope to be making my way up to my first century rides. Half-Centuries have proven to be successful for the few that I've done, thus far. I'm working on increasing my steady cadence, endurance during climbs, and over all endurance on long rides. My problem is that I'm typically running out of energy regularly. I'd say the last 15-20 miles of a 50 mile ride, I'm out of steam.
> 
> The obvious might be going too hard out of the gate and not pacing myself, so I've been mindful of that. But I'm thinking that I'm not eating enough. I'm 6'1" and about 166-167 lbs. right now.
> 
> I'm thinking about signing up for Sufferfest videos and doing additional indoor training between rides, hoping this will help me to manage my pace, output, and overall endurance. The piece that I'm not clear about is what I should be eating pre-rides, post-rides, how much, etc. I can admit that I eat healthy, but probably not enough. But I'm not sure of this.


Per several other comments - you mention pre-ride and post-ride but not during the ride. If you don't eat during the ride it is no surprise that you run out of steam toward the end.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

If the ride is long enough that you need to eat during it (usually over 2-3 hrs) you should consume ~100 cal every 1/2 hr starting 30 minutes in. This can be gels, energy drink, a banana, two fig newtons, etc... The reason to start soon is that it takes time for what you eat to be digested and metabolized. 

For the full story, read a book like "Sports Nutrition for Endurance Athletes" by Ryan.


----------



## skhan007 (May 18, 2012)

Thanks for the advice, everyone. I'm clearly not eating enough before and not at all during rides, so I suppose it's to be expected that one runs out of energy. I'll make those adjustments straight away. I'll also take a look a the book recommendation, as well. Cheers!


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

If you're goal is endurance, then look to train in zone 3 (about 70% - 75% effort) on an empty stomach, and with no food on the ride. Train your body to burn fat for energy.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Remember that no amount of food can make up for lack of endurance. "Energy gels" aren't some magical force that gives you power where you don't have it. 

But as others have said, you should be eating while riding. A moderate breakfast & 100-200cal per hour of riding. If that doesn't do it, you just need to ride more to build endurance.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

People have given some good advice regarding fuel and nutrition. An easily overlooked factor is hydration. 

Dehydration sneaks up on you and it is much easier to stay hydrated than it is to come back after your mouth starts to feel dry. While everyone is different, I follow a one bottle per hour rule. To maintain this, I need to drink early on the ride, well before I ever feel thirsty. 

How is your hydration?


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> If you're goal is endurance, then look to train in zone 3 (about 70% - 75% effort) on an empty stomach, and with no food on the ride. Train your body to burn fat for energy.


Ignore this op. This is stupid.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

tlg said:


> Remember that no amount of food can make up for lack of endurance. "Energy gels" aren't some magical force that gives you power where you don't have it.


Doesn't take that much power to ride 100 miles. Just takes energy.

Now to ride 100 miles fast is an entirely different matter...


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

runabike said:


> Ignore this op. This is stupid.


I take it you have no clue what fat metabolism is, and how/when to ride in manner when you can maximize the usage of that huge fat reserve, and when you must go a bit harder and dip deeper into a higher % of glycogen? You're so clueless I won't even bother. I'd dumb myself debating any further with you


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

runabike said:


> Doesn't take that much power to ride 100 miles. Just takes energy.
> 
> Now to ride 100 miles fast is an entirely different matter...


FYI.. Power = energy/time
If it takes energy... it takes power.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Be careful about eating before the ride. It takes energy to digest food. 
Personally I feel sluggish with any more than a bagel right before a ride. All my rides of any significance start in the morning and it seems a good dinner the night before is way more important than what I have or don't have right before the ride.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Be careful about eating before the ride. It takes energy to digest food.
> Personally I feel sluggish with any more than a bagel right before a ride. All my rides of any significance start in the morning and it seems a good dinner the night before is way more important than what I have or don't have right before the ride.


There is a reason for this. When we consume food, especially food rich in carbs, it causes an insulin spike, and insulin spike is a bad bad thing because it causes our muscles to burn glycogen more than fat. There are other negative effects of insulin on athletic performace, but basically, you don't want an insulin spike right before or during an athletic performance. And eating too much also divert blood to the gut for digestion; you want blood going to the muscles, not the gut. And eating too much right before hard exercise causes an osmolarity imbalance in the gut as your body starts to demand water just as much if not more than calorie; and an osmolarity imbalance can cause hydration issue once into the event. As you can see, eating right before a ride can cause a host of different undesirable factors that will affect performance once you start going at it hard.

The best way to eat for an endurance event is to eat about 3+ hours before the event, and let the food clear out of the stomach completely or almost completely clear out. I see too many people goobling a gel or a bar (or even a sandwich!) right before an event. These folks are coping each other and doing it wrong. But I don't blame them though since they probably don't know. Heck, even a coach who posted on the USA Cycling website once recommended taking a gel or bar 30 minutes before an event. Wrong!

I think there is a lot of good information out there regarding sport performance and nutrition. The problem is that there is also even more "bro science" out there too, and it's the "bro science" noise that is contributing to the confusion and misinformation


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> I take it you have no clue what fat metabolism is, and how/when to ride in manner when you can maximize the usage of that huge fat reserve, and when you must go a bit harder and dip deeper into a higher % of glycogen? You're so clueless I won't even bother. I'd dumb myself debating any further with you



Well, that was insightful.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

tlg said:


> FYI.. Power = energy/time
> If it takes energy... it takes power.


Cycling forum, dude. Power = force x speed.

He doesn't need to produce much power to ride 100 miles.

Like I said, for finishing long rides, nutrition is more important than training.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> The best way to eat for an endurance event is to eat about 3+ hours before the event, and let the food clear out of the stomach completely or almost completely clear out. I see too many people goobling a gel or a bar (or even a sandwich!) right before an event. These folks are coping each other and doing it wrong. But I don't blame them though since they probably don't know. Heck, even a coach who posted on the USA Cycling website once recommended taking a gel or bar 30 minutes before an event. Wrong! I think there is a lot of good information out there regarding sport performance and nutrition. The problem is that there is also even more "bro science" out there too, and it's the "bro science" noise that is contributing to the confusion and misinformation


And you think you're helping alleviate that confusion with the nonsense you're spouting? It's "advice" like yours that leads to issues like the op is having in the first place. 

Not eating to teach your body to burn fat? Has your body gotten stupid and magically forgotten hundreds of thousands of years of evolution? It KNOWS how to burn fat.

What you need to do is get FITTER so you're operating at a lower intensity in which less calories are being consumed from glycogen. 

And what you need to get FITTER is to train. 

And what you need to train is energy which comes from... wait for it... EATING! 

Of course, you're the guy who thinks you're only training if you're riding at 85-90% and riding at 60% is simply recovery, so I can see why you've got issues reconciling the correlation between the two. 

Bottom line, OP, you need to eat. A lot more and a lot more often. You'll notice that most everyone else said that.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

double post.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

runabike said:


> Bottom line, OP, you need to eat. A lot more and a lot more often. You'll notice that most everyone else said that.


That's completely true if lack of fuel is is the underlying issue. Based on the posts here, can we confirm that?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

runabike said:


> Cycling forum, dude. Power = force x speed.
> 
> He doesn't need to produce much power to ride 100 miles.


Physics _dude_. 


Energy = Force * Distance.
Throw in Time (it is taking time right?) and you have Distance/Time (aka Speed).

Power = Energy/Time
Power = Force * Distance/Time

Like I said, If it takes energy... it takes power.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

tlg said:


> Physics _dude_.
> 
> 
> Energy = Force * Distance.
> ...


Are you seriously being this pedantic? It does not take a lot of watts to ride 100 miles. I hope you're not really that obtuse.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> That's completely true if lack of fuel is is the underlying issue. Based on the posts here, can we confirm that?


Based on the posts here? Like this one?



skhan007 said:


> I'm clearly not eating enough before and not at all during rides, so I suppose it's to be expected that one runs out of energy.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

runabike said:


> Well, that was insightful.


I'm replying here not to engate in a debate with you, but to show you that not only are you ignorant, but also rude as well, and that combination makes you a little stupid looking.

Here is what you wrote in your earlier post:



> Eat after 60-90 minutes and every hour after that.


If eating in such fashion as you described, it is equivalent to dumping about 2 gels (~200-220 calories of carbs) into the gut every hour. This acute influx of sugar will cause an insulin spike, which can lead to chronic degradation of performance due to the insulin effect on how muscles will now select which energy source to use (% of glycogen versus % of fat). The goal of endurance racing/riding is to use fat as energy as much as possible, and spare the glycogen for use in higher intensity effort. In addition, an acute influx of food every hour, can cause a hydration issue because of the change in osmolarity in the guts. And hydration is just as important if not more than food intake.

In your two posts directed toward me, you're not debating, but trying to be smartass. And you weren't attempting to debate because you really know nothing about the issue. Most people resort to smartass quip when they can't debate. You seem to fit that mold. Listen jr, it's ok to be ignorant, but lose the rude attitude and maybe you'll go further. I'm not debating with you, but I'm telling you I won't debate with a rude ignorant person.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

runabike said:


> Are you seriously being this pedantic? It does not take a lot of watts to ride 100 miles. I hope you're not really that obtuse.


 Are you being ignorant? Who said anything about taking lots of watts? 
Read a little closer.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

tlg said:


> Are you being ignorant? Who said anything about taking lots of watts?
> Read a little closer.


Nevermind. 

I took your initial quip about power to mean wattage and responded with that in mind.

Apologies for the confusion.


----------



## evs (Feb 18, 2004)

I've had run ins with runabike before. Looks like he's up to his old tricks again. Maybe he should run a long. View his forum posts. I don't even have to open them up. They are full of attitude and rudeness


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

runabike said:


> Based on the posts here? Like this one?


Yes, I saw that. I know he thinks it is the issue.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

runabike said:


> And you think you're helping alleviate that confusion with the nonsense you're spouting? It's "advice" like yours that leads to issues like the op is having in the first place.
> 
> Not eating to teach your body to burn fat? Has your body gotten stupid and magically forgotten hundreds of thousands of years of evolution? It KNOWS how to burn fat.
> 
> ...


More clueless dribble from you lacking basic understanding of physiology and adaptive training. 

You speak of energy, but do you realize that a typical endurance athlete has about 80,000-100,000 calories from fat reserve verses about 1500 calories from glycogen in both the liver and muscles? Yes people need to eat carbs to replenish the depleted glycogen stores so that both fats and carbohydrates can continue to contribute to the overall energy pool. Best way to train your body for fat metabolism is to make it adapt a little, force it to use fat, and you ain't gonna if you keep feeding it carbs via acute dosage (and yes, dumping 200-250 calories all at once every hour is acute) 

Good to know that "bro science" is alive and kickin on RBR


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

evs said:


> I've had run ins with runabike before. Looks like he's up to his old tricks again. Maybe he should run a long. View his forum posts. I don't even have to open them up. They are full of attitude and rudeness


the dude doesn't understand much, but he understands just enough bro science to opine, but fair enough, we're all ignorant some point. But his rude attitude total sh..t


----------



## arai_speed (Aug 19, 2003)

skhan007 said:


> ...I'm clearly not eating enough before and *not at all during rides*...


That there is the problem.

Nutrition/hydration, pre, post and during rides are all very important components that need to be taken into account. You must also realize that your needs will differ from someone else's so you need to find the balance of food intake that works for you without negative side effects like feeling bloated from eating too much or feeling weak from eating too little.

And as another poster mentioned, you need to consider hydration, and realize that it is not something you simply do the day off the ride. It's something you need to do all the time, both on and off the bike, before (days before), during and after the ride.

GL!


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> More clueless dribble from you lacking basic understanding of physiology and adaptive training.
> 
> You speak of energy, but do you realize that a typical endurance athlete has about 80,000-100,000 calories from fat reserve verses about 1500 calories from glycogen in both the liver and muscles? Yes people need to eat carbs to replenish the depleted glycogen stores so that both fats and carbohydrates can continue to contribute to the overall energy pool. Best way to train your body for fat metabolism is to make it adapt a little, force it to use fat, and you ain't gonna if you keep feeding it carbs via acute dosage (and yes, dumping 200-250 calories all at once every hour is acute)
> 
> Good to know that "bro science" is alive and kickin on RBR


I'm going to go ahead and agree with you here. I've done my share of rides in a fasted state. 

For the first 2.5 hours I feel great. However, I will "bonk" 3 hours into a morning ride, when I have not had any calories since the night before. That bonk is a real bonk: total energy drop, blurred vision, weak upper body. It feels different then feeling dehydrated. It's much more than simply "getting tired." It is miserable and I am sure entirely different than what the thread starter has described. 

How much fuel does a person need on a 50 mi ride? In my opinion, not much. I'm sure they can get by with just sports drink. I also think that many amateur athletes are overfeeding. They read all about Hammer Nutrition or sports beans and scarf down carbs when they feel tired. In many cases, the problem is not lack of fuel but lack of fitness. 

Also, I mentioned and other mentioned, it could be a hydration issue. Dehydration is much, much more common than bonking from lack of fuel. 

On the other hand, a few of my best road races had the best nutritional plans. When I do a 4 hour road race I am vigilant with 1-bottle/hour and taking a gu every 45 minutes. I stay proactive when it really counts.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Local Hero said:


> I'm going to go ahead and agree with you here. I've done my share of rides in a fasted state.
> 
> For the first 2.5 hours I feel great. However, I will "bonk" 3 hours into a morning ride, when I have not had any calories since the night before. That bonk is a real bonk: total energy drop, blurred vision, weak upper body. It feels different then feeling dehydrated. It's much more than simply "getting tired." It is miserable and I am sure entirely different than what the thread starter has described.
> 
> ...


And you're correct. I spoke of training, and it's only in training that you can and should experiement with macro nutrients uptake, and the outter limits of your rate of glycogen usage as compared to your intensity and duration. Fasted state is a great to train and discover the boundary, but it's not something an athlete should train exclusive (and I assume everyone in here knows this). In my context, I did not mean to tell the OP to go ahead and train like this all the time, but I should have been more clear.

Yes for an amateur like the OP, fitness will be a big issue. So he will need work on that. The good thing is that new endurance athletes will keep improving for 5 years before his capacity will pretty much climax, regardless of age. After 5 years, the athlete is pretty capped out in the fitness area, and now performance will be bottlenecked by nutrient delivery (healthy human lungs are over-developed and is usually not the bottleneck). The OP's fitness level has not reached a point that would cause his nutrient delivery system to become the bottleneck, yet. So more training for him.

For my part, I've done a fair share numbers of 12-hr and 18-hr fasted and no food ride. Depending on intensity, I can go about 3-4 hours with just water and a bit of electrolytes, though 4 hour is pushing it. If I know beforehand that the ride will only last 3 hrs, then I will entertain some "fun" by doing some short hill segments at threshold intensity (all the while mindful that I'm burning up precious glycogen at a faster rate). Right now I'm experimenting with a mix of gu and coconut oil to see if i can find that fine balance of energy mix that'll provide a good combinationn of fast-acting glucose and longer burner fats, all the while trying to avoid upsetting the gut. But this is beyond what the OP is seeking.

and yes I now exactly what you mean about bonking. Total demolition and utter carnage. It's game over at that point, and you really don't want to die like this on the road. So what I do is go for a fasted ride about 2.5 hours on the road, then get home and immediately jump on the trainer and go for about another hour. Figure if I'm gonna bonk, it's safer to bonk at home with nutrients on standy.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> More clueless dribble from you lacking basic understanding of physiology and adaptive training.
> 
> You speak of energy, but do you realize that a typical endurance athlete has about 80,000-100,000 calories from fat reserve verses about 1500 calories from glycogen in both the liver and muscles? Yes people need to eat carbs to replenish the depleted glycogen stores so that both fats and carbohydrates can continue to contribute to the overall energy pool. Best way to train your body for fat metabolism is to make it adapt a little, force it to use fat, and you ain't gonna if you keep feeding it carbs via acute dosage (and yes, dumping 200-250 calories all at once every hour is acute)
> 
> Good to know that "bro science" is alive and kickin on RBR



It's a simple question. Yes or no will suffice.

Does the body really need to be "taught" how to utilize fat?


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

evs said:


> I've had run ins with runabike before. Looks like he's up to his old tricks again. Maybe he should run a long. View his forum posts. I don't even have to open them up. They are full of attitude and rudeness


Funny I have no idea who you are. 

Except someone who apparently has no interest in the thread at hand and is solely interested in irrelevant potshots. 

So I guess there's that.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> The good thing is that new endurance athletes will keep improving for 5 years before his capacity will pretty much climax, regardless of age. After 5 years, the athlete is pretty capped out in the fitness area, and now performance will be bottlenecked by nutrient delivery (healthy human lungs are over-developed and is usually not the bottleneck). The OP's fitness level has not reached a point that would cause his nutrient delivery system to become the bottleneck, yet. So more training for him.


Five years, huh? 

So you're just basically making things up, now? And sure, why not?


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> More clueless dribble from you lacking basic understanding of physiology and adaptive training.


Dribble? Like spit? Or drivel?

Adaptive training? Please, yes, teach me more about how I should train at 85-90% if I want to actually train and how 60% is just "recovery" and how I'll "cap out" in five years of training. 

Good to know you can just make something up and call it "science" on RBR.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Local Hero said:


> For the first 2.5 hours I feel great. However, I will "bonk" 3 hours into a morning ride, when I have not had any calories since the night before. That bonk is a real bonk: total energy drop, blurred vision, weak upper body. It feels different then feeling dehydrated. It's much more than simply "getting tired." It is miserable and I am sure entirely different than what the thread starter has described.
> 
> How much fuel does a person need on a 50 mi ride? In my opinion, not much. I'm sure they can get by with just sports drink. I also think that many amateur athletes are overfeeding. They read all about Hammer Nutrition or sports beans and scarf down carbs when they feel tired. In many cases, the problem is not lack of fuel but lack of fitness.


And no one wants the op to go out and bonk. A bonk screws you up. Not only can it absolutely ruin your ride, but it can ruin the next couple subsequent rides as well. 

Can someone do a 50 mile ride on water or a sports drink? Sure. And absolutely it's easy to overeat if you're loading up before and after and downing dingdongs every other mile to do 1-2 rides a week or something.

But daily repetitive training can very easily put you in a caloric deficit that can be tough to climb out of if you're not on top of nutrition. Maybe the op isn't at that point, now, but why wait to get into a habit of eating? Especially if he's having issues now?

If the op isn't eating much before and hasn't tried eating on a ride, then that's the logical and simplest next step. 

Sure as hell isn't "train on an empty stomach with no food on the ride if your idea is to train endurance". Newsflash for acl, a whole lot of us have trained pretty well for "endurance" without putting our training at risk with archaic, Soviet-style "training" ideas.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

I'm not interested in reviewing runabike's post history, what he is posting here is accurate. I'm not sure what you mean in terms of adding foods that cause insulin spikes... That is certainly true in the context of daily living but I understand we are talking about endurance sports? Deprivation is just bad training. You MUST give your body the calories it needs or you will not improve. Don't get overly concerned with things like zones or fuel types. Eat at least an hour before activity, 2 is better. Eat immediately after. Get protein to .75g per lb. of body weight, eat 5 a day of fruits and veg and a rainbow... 2,000 to 2,500 calories a day (if that suits your ideal weight).


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

runabike said:


> It's a simple question. Yes or no will suffice.
> 
> Does the body really need to be "taught" how to utilize fat?


I'll keep it simple. Yes it does. 

If one trains their muscles, they will develop. If one stops training them, they will under hypertrophy. Yet, regardless of hypertrophy or hypotroph, one still has one's muscles, right? So by YOUR logic, if the muscles are present, then it doesn't matter if they're trained (or taught) or not, right? and they should be able to perform equally well trained or not, right? Surely, by YOUR logic, adaptive training means nothing, and that our muscles don't need any "teaching" (training) to perform well, say... anymore than our physiology system needs training to utilize fat versus glycogen efficienty. More bro science from you.

but really I shouldn't call you bro science. I'd insult bro science. They know more than you. Want proof? here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kbSfFFEvxw


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

runabike said:


> Dribble? Like spit? Or drivel?
> 
> Adaptive training? Please, yes, teach me more about how I should train at 85-90% if I want to actually train and how 60% is just "recovery" and how I'll "cap out" in five years of training.
> 
> Good to know you can just make something up and call it "science" on RBR.


I would be wasting your time if I actually post research studies from the academia. You would be confused. I rather let you continue living in your world of bro science and let you be happy about it.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> I'll keep it simple. Yes it does.
> 
> If one trains their muscles, they will develop. If one stops training them, they will under hypertrophy. Yet, regardless of hypertrophy or hypotroph, one still has one's muscles, right? So by YOUR logic, if the muscles are present, then it doesn't matter if they're trained (or taught) or not, right? and they should be able to perform equally well trained or not, right? Surely, by YOUR logic, adaptive training means nothing, and that our muscles don't need any "teaching" (training) to perform well, say... anymore than our physiology system needs training to utilize fat versus glycogen efficienty. More bro science from you
> 
> "If you can't impress with brilliance, baffle with bullsh.."


Except it doesn't. 

The problem with your horrible analogy is that your muscles (just like your metabolism) are constantly working thus no atrophy occurs in an active individual. Your body knows perfectly well how to utilize fat as it's been doing so since before you were even cognizant of that ability. 

How is it that riders can go out and do 3-5 hour rides week in and week out (day in and day out in some cases) without ever undergoing such "fasted training"? How is this possible if the body must be "taught"? If you take all of the people who eat properly and compare them to all the people who follow your "don't eat before and don't eat during", which camp do you think the vast, vast, vast majority of people are going to fall under? And yet, if what you're going on about is true, how is this possible for so many people to perform such endurance exercise so well? 

As for performance training, well, it's well known by most people who know something that simply repeating a set stimulus (like your 85-90% spill) will lead to stagnation and that adaptation is the bane of improvement as once the body adapts then the stimulus must be changed to encourage further improvement. 

And racing, contrary to whatever erroneous notion you're operating under, is absolutely not defined in any way, set, or form by your ability to dole out 90% efforts for however long. I'm not sure if you have any understanding of specificity, but it might make for a good afternoon of reading and enlighten you to modern training methodology.

Are your little quips at the end a summation of your philosophy with regards to your posts? Is it like a cliffnotes version?


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> I would be wasting your time if I actually post research studies from the academia. You would be confused. I rather let you continue living in your world of bro science and let you be happy about it.


You're going to post research from academia about riding "around 85% - 90% threshold (which is what one should do in a training ride)"? 

Dude, waste my time. I'm super keen to see it. You'll set modern day training on its ear. Running, cycling, cross country skiing... the potential impact for your...academia... cannot be quantified!

To think that modern day endurance training can be reduced to such a simple instruction. It's like that story where the secret of alchemy is a simple sentence written on a stone and yet we have all of these books trying to understand that simple sentence.

Are you like a modern-day training alchemist?


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> I would be wasting your time if I actually post research studies from the academia. You would be confused. I rather let you continue living in your world of bro science and let you be happy about it.


I once read a wonderful Max Testa quote (he was team USA Cycling doc for a bunch of years, I think he was the doc for Mapei also? He is an Italian...) during the TdF "I can tell the day my riders are going to have by their bed sheets and breakfast plates. If they slept well and ate well they would ride well, if they didn't sleep well or didn't eat well they wouldn't ride well." That is paraphrased but written in quotes for emphasis.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

PBL450 said:


> I once read a wonderful Max Testa quote (he was team USA Cycling doc for a bunch of years, I think he was the doc for Mapei also? He is an Italian...) during the TdF "I can tell the day my riders are going to have by their bed sheets and breakfast plates. If they slept well and ate well they would ride well, if they didn't sleep well or didn't eat well they wouldn't ride well." That is paraphrased but written in quotes for emphasis.


racing versus training

you believe eating and sleeping is all there is to winning tdf?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

runabike said:


> You're going to post research from academia about riding "around 85% - 90% threshold (which is what one should do in a training ride)"?
> 
> Dude, waste my time. I'm super keen to see it. You'll set modern day training on its ear. Running, cycling, cross country skiing... the potential impact for your...academia... cannot be quantified!
> 
> ...


not wasting my time with you anymore


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> racing versus training
> 
> you believe eating and sleeping is all there is to winning tdf?


I thought it was a great quote emphasizing the importance of eating before racing by a current and extremely respected sports physician, I believe even a team USA doc at the Sochi Olympics. Correct, he is talking about racing, not training, I'm sure his riders didn't eat on training days? He doesn't mention it in his book though... Yes, it's just a good nights sleep and a good breakfast, years of training, genetics, financial support, discipline... All meaningless, give me breakfast and I can smoke those turkey's racing the TdF. That's what I meant.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

PBL450 said:


> I thought it was a great quote emphasizing the importance of eating before racing by a current and extremely respected sports physician, I believe even a team USA doc at the Sochi Olympics. Correct, he is talking about racing, not training, I'm sure his riders didn't eat on training days? He doesn't mention it in his book though... Yes, it's just a good nights sleep and a good breakfast, years of training, genetics, financial support, discipline... All meaningless, give me breakfast and I can smoke those turkey's racing the TdF. That's what I meant.


I see you point. I usally don't follow what the TdF say because they're outliers


----------



## duriel (Oct 10, 2013)

Maybe you all should just start a "I am RIGHT" thread?

Regardless of all the postings. If you race/train/ride, if you don't eat you will not get faster/stronger/longer. You will just wear down and slow down. 
If you don't eat, you can't push your muscles to perform. If you don't eat you are not training, your on a diet.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

runabike said:


> And no one wants the op to go out and bonk. A bonk screws you up. Not only can it absolutely ruin your ride, but it can ruin the next couple subsequent rides as well.
> 
> Can someone do a 50 mile ride on water or a sports drink? Sure. And absolutely it's easy to overeat if you're loading up before and after and downing dingdongs every other mile to do 1-2 rides a week or something.
> 
> ...


Yes, I see your point. I'm still convinced that it is a fitness (not feeding) issue but there's no harm in trying different things with food.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

IMO the OP is clearly describing fatigue associated with not eating enough before or during the ride. I experience it myself if I don't fuel up properly.

I recall reading a thread on, I believe, the wattage board about riding in a glycogen depleted state not being worthwhile training strategy. It might be a novel way to limit calories by (say) skipping breakfast. But it's not a good strategy if it results in you experiencing fatigue on the bike. I cringe any time someone brings up calorie restricted diets and significant amounts of endurance exercise. It's a recipe for fatigue and failure IMO.


----------



## goodboyr (Apr 19, 2006)

Easy to test this. He's already done the ride in a calorie depleted manner and it didn't work....thus the original post. How about trying the advice on eating during the ride and then report back? (Pretty sure I know what will happen..........and it won't make your muscles "lazy".......)


----------



## Guod (Jun 9, 2011)

I don't understand the confusion here. Runabike is pretty much right about how to approach nutrition WHILE ON THE RIDE. That doesn't have any bearing on DIET when you're off the bike.

For anything less than 2-2.5hrs, not taking any food would be fine. But, longer rides or more intense rides, will require some sort of nutritional input.

If you're wanting to lose weight and keep weight off, that's something to be approached from a lifestyle perspective, not from a training perspective.

You have to eat to sustain your energy levels and recover. You can do that with good food or bad food, that's up to you. But, training your body to ride 5hrs off of "stored fat" isn't going to work too well. At least not without putting you in a huge hole that will take your body a long time to recover from.

Multiple threads have been done on this. If you put in the time on the bike and eat reasonably, there's no reason to starve yourself to get fit. In fact, you'll probably lose fitness over time due to fatigue if you undershoot your caloric and nutritional needs. Anyone who has trained at a decent level for any amount of time knows the importance of eating enough (and sleeping enough). Simply put, eat. You need it.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

OP,

you're new to cycling. You may not have enough experience to tell if it's a "fitness" issue or an "energy" issue that is affecting your performance. That is ok. Keep doing it enough, and keep researching, and eventually you will figure it out.

But here is an excellent reading for you regarding endurance training (from USA Cycling website):

Zone 2 Training for Endurance Athletes - USA Cycling

It's a good GENERAL guidelines for endurance training, and especially great for a new cyclist. You would be wise to pay close attention to what the author say about physiologic and metabolic adaptations. Pay close attention to muscle type usage as it relates to the ratio of (carbohydrates / fat) usage. Also, he also mentioned something called "lactate clearance" and how lactate clearance relates to type I and II muscles, and ultimately your performance.

I understand the article can be complex, but most PhD science type of writing is never an easy read, and unavoidable. But the author did a good job trying to write it at a level that a weekend can digest while still trying to get the science across.

As for nutrition, let me make this clear. If you had a regular dinner the night before a 50-mi ride, then ALL you need to do is eat something like 1 slice of p&j bread (about 200 calories max!) 2 hrs before the ride. Then about 45-60 min into the ride, take about 100-110 calories (~1 gel) every 30-45 minutes. Reason is because at your weight, you will need about 200-220 calories/hr total (which is about 1 gel/half hour). Whatever you do, do not wait to long and then try to "make up" for the food by dumping 2 gels (or the carb equivalent) into your gut at once. This will only cause other issues relating to digestion and hydration. In my personal experience, and in my experience talking with a couple nutrition coaches, most people tend to over-eat, not under-eat.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Dunbar said:


> IMO the OP is clearly describing fatigue associated with not eating enough before or during the ride. I experience it myself if I don't fuel up properly.
> 
> I recall reading a thread on, I believe, the wattage board about riding in a glycogen depleted state not being worthwhile training strategy. It might be a novel way to limit calories by (say) skipping breakfast. But it's not a good strategy if it results in you experiencing fatigue on the bike. I cringe any time someone brings up calorie restricted diets and significant amounts of endurance exercise. It's a recipe for fatigue and failure IMO.


I believe the OP's issue is one of fitness too. I see more people over eating than under eating.

Regarding the depleted glycogen training. I would like to make a few comments. First of all guys who do this and fail, then give up, tend to come back with horror stories on the internet. It's just as likely that guys who do this and succeed will come back with raving stories, but it is usually the failures that yell the loudest. But the majority of the anecdotes I read from people trying it, they didn't have a right training plan. For example, one guy said he had about 12 hrs/wk to train, and of course, like most amateur cyclists with 10-12 hrs/wk, he wanted to make sure almost every training hour is high intensity, and when he couldn't do his high intensity session 1 day later, he blame it on his depleted glycogen (but refuse to accept myabe it was muscle fatigue, a fitness issue). And that was with just 2 hrs fasted riding. On the other extreme, I have also read guys doing 4, even 5 hours, of riding without food (but they did not fast and had a small breakfast). But if you notice, the guys who tend to be the success stories, are usually the more advanced guys, with more experience, with a good understanding of physiology and experimentation. Those who fail, are ususally the ones with lesser experience, looking for a magic bullet to endurance.

On a personal level, I do fasted ride once a week. I have once fasted for 18 hrs, and then gone out and do a 3-hr, ~50 mile ride with about ~2800 ft climbing. My weighted avg power for the ride was about 73% FTP, arithmetic avg power about 61% FTP. So it's not like I just go zone 2/3 the whole time as the difference in the averages hints that there were times I went into threshold and even beyond (as this was not a completely flat ride), and that of course burn glycogen more. 

Do I normally fast 18hrs like this? No I don't, but I did it to see what my body is capable of, how it would respond, and to be honest, that was not close to pushing it to the point of bonking yet. I did not come anywhere close to collapse after the ride. Yet on the same ride, I dropped all the "B" guys (the same guys who tend to eat at every stop) and stayed with the "A" guys until the last 4-5 miles or so when they decided to hammer when the road turned flat (and flat is where I can't use my W/kg advantage over them). Do I believe in a more reasonable fasted ride, something like 12 hr fast, 1.5-2 hr ride, no food? Once a week? I do. It gives me a better understanding of my limits, and I consider ths understanding to be an advantage. How so? In a long and sustained climb, where you are going at 90-93% threshold for almost 2 hrs, it will help you a lot if you already sort of know how much you can push your body. Riding at zone 4/5 for a few miles, then take a 5 minute rest so you can eat, then ride zone 4/5 again, then eat again, this is good intensity training, but it lacks volume. I'm oversimplying a bit here. Also I'm more of an endurance person. I don't care much for sprints, don't care much for 30 sec power, 1 min power. Goal is mainly endurance.

Perhaps I was probably being too oversimplistic by telling the OP just go 3hr without food because he is a beginner and might just take my word literally without thinking about tailoring what I said to fit his ability and time. Sometimes I just assume that when somebody give you an advice, you'll first research it and modify such advice if you need to make it fit your goal plan. I shouldn't have assumed, my bad there. Usually I just assume people who read the internet always do their own additional research by reading multiple websites/posts and not just do what the first poster opines.


----------



## skhan007 (May 18, 2012)

Thanks so much. I will study what you guys are recommending. There was a lot of back and forth on this thread and I think you guys realize this was not my intention. I suppose there are going to be some strong opinions regarding topics, such as this, where different approaches are possible. 

I have been going out for 25+ mile rides almost daily and on the trainer in between. I'm probably at about 100 miles/week. Weight loss really isn't my goal, but building endurance certainly is. I went out the last two days doing 25-30 mile loops on the local roads, snacking as some have suggested and that helped for these shorter distances. I do feel really depleted today and took a day off. Is there such a think as bonking the next day? Any way, I've got to educate myself more. That's for certain, so I'm deeply appreciative to you guys and your advice. 



aclinjury said:


> OP,
> 
> you're new to cycling. You may not have enough experience to tell if it's a "fitness" issue or an "energy" issue that is affecting your performance. That is ok. Keep doing it enough, and keep researching, and eventually you will figure it out.
> 
> ...


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

skhan007 said:


> Thanks so much. I will study what you guys are recommending. There was a lot of back and forth on this thread and I think you guys realize this was not my intention. I suppose there are going to be some strong opinions regarding topics, such as this, where different approaches are possible.
> 
> I have been going out for 25+ mile rides almost daily and on the trainer in between. I'm probably at about 100 miles/week. Weight loss really isn't my goal, but building endurance certainly is. I went out the last two days doing 25-30 mile loops on the local roads, snacking as some have suggested and that helped for these shorter distances. I do feel really depleted today and took a day off. *Is there such a think as bonking the next day?* Any way, I've got to educate myself more. That's for certain, so I'm deeply appreciative to you guys and your advice.


No there isn't. If you're going to bonk, it will be during the exercise. And in my experience the onset of of a true bonk comes pretty suddenly. If you feel "depleted" the next day, then it's probably fatigue. And if it's fatigue, then you need more training; and no amount of extra food is going to make your fatigue go away any faster. Rest does. Fatigue and bonk are different animals, but sometimes people who haven't experienced a true bonk think their fatigue is a bonk (which in turn _may_ make them think it's a food issue). Let me put it this way, when you bonk, you're looking at putting out maybe 20% of your threshold power and you would feel disoriented (as in getting a heat stroke); that's bonking.

one more thing you need to keep in mind is that at the limits of performance (and each person has a different limit depending on his fitness), nutrition becomes a very tricky issue, it actually becomes the bottleneck, and the science of keeping your body going at the edge is as much a science as it is an art. What I mean is that some people will respond to a particular training and eating regime well while others will respond well to something else. It's individualistic. So only real way to know is to do lots of experimentation, trial and error, and this takes time. What works for me may not work for you at all, or it may work but to a lesser degree.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> not wasting my time with you anymore


Yet it's not just me, is it? Everyone else is saying the same thing. 

You're the only one saying differently. Perhaps it's you wasting everyone's time?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*



evs said:


> I've had run ins with runabike before. Looks like he's up to his old tricks again. Maybe he should run a long. View his forum posts. I don't even have to open them up. They are full of attitude and rudeness


Then put him on ignore and move along. Don't do this.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

skhan007 said:


> Thanks so much. I will study what you guys are recommending. There was a lot of back and forth on this thread and I think you guys realize this was not my intention. I suppose there are going to be some strong opinions regarding topics, such as this, where different approaches are possible.
> 
> I have been going out for 25+ mile rides almost daily and on the trainer in between. I'm probably at about 100 miles/week. Weight loss really isn't my goal, but building endurance certainly is. I went out the last two days doing 25-30 mile loops on the local roads, snacking as some have suggested and that helped for these shorter distances. I do feel really depleted today and took a day off. Is there such a think as bonking the next day? Any way, I've got to educate myself more. That's for certain, so I'm deeply appreciative to you guys and your advice.


There really aren't strong _differing _opinions. You'll notice only one person is giving "advice" contrary to the general consensus. 

Keep in mind that it's important to eat after your rides, too. 20-30 mins afterwards is a great time to have a clif bar or some milk and a banana or something like that if it's going to be a while before your next meal. Getting a couple of hundred calories in quickly after the activity helps get glycogen storing up again right away.

That can be important even for those shorter riders when you're doing multiple days of riding in a row.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> Perhaps I was probably being too oversimplistic by telling the OP just go 3hr without food because he is a beginner and might just take my word literally without thinking about tailoring what I said to fit his ability and time.


What most of us are trying to say is that starving yourself while riding a bike is a bad idea. Can you get away with it? Sure, but that doesn't make it a good idea. AFAIK there is no scientific research that validates that riding fasted is good for you. Anecdotally I sometimes find myself hungry towards the end of a ride and I hate the feeling (fatigued and have trouble staying in zone 2 power.) It's best to lose weight or maintain weight loss by focusing on what you eat off the bike rather than try to ride on an empty stomach IMO. Nobody here is saying you need to scarf down 600-800 calories during an <3hr ride. We're saying get on the bike well fueled and consume a moderate amount of calories on the bike as needed. Obviously the caloric needs for a 30 mile flat ride right after you ate lunch are going to be much different than what is needed on a hilly century that takes you 6 hours to complete.

Oh, as far as fitness it could be he's chronically fatigued because he's just not eating enough. There was a thread on BF about a guy doing lots of endurance exercise (2+ hours a day) on <2000 calories a day. He was complaining about feeling fatigued all of the time. Once he started eating more he felt fine. It really boggles my mind when someone thinks you can eat say 1500 calories a day and then go out and burn 1000 calories on the bike on a regular basis with no consequences. I completely understand this is a problem unique to endurance athletes and not something the average American couch potato needs to worry about.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Dunbar said:


> <snipped...> *AFAIK there is no scientific research that validates that riding fasted is good for you..*.


Here are some evidence from a few different studies.



> Training with limited carbohydrate availability can stimulate adaptations in muscle cells to facilitate energy production via fat oxidation. Here we investigated the effect of consistent training in the fasted state, vs. training in the fed state, on muscle metabolism and substrate selection during fasted exercise. Twenty young male volunteers participated in a 6-wk endurance training program (1–1.5 h cycling at ∼70% V̇O2max, 4 days/wk) while receiving isocaloric carbohydrate-rich diets. Half of the subjects trained in the fasted state (F; _n_ = 10), while the others ingested ample carbohydrates before (∼160 g) and during (1 g·kg body wt−1·h−1) the training sessions (CHO; _n_ = 10). The training similarly increased V̇O2max (+9%) and performance in a 60-min simulated time trial (+8%) in both groups (_P_ < 0.01). Metabolic measurements were made during a 2-h constant-load exercise bout in the fasted state at ∼65% pretraining V̇O2max. In F, exercise-induced intramyocellular lipid (IMCL) breakdown was enhanced in type I fibers (_P_ < 0.05) and tended to be increased in type IIa fibers (_P_ = 0.07). Training did not affect IMCL breakdown in CHO. In addition, F (+21%) increased the exercise intensity corresponding to the maximal rate of fat oxidation more than did CHO (+6%) (_P_ < 0.05). Furthermore, maximal citrate synthase (+47%) and β-hydroxyacyl coenzyme A dehydrogenase (+34%) activity was significantly upregulated in F (_P_ < 0.05) but not in CHO. Also, only F prevented the development exercise-induced drop in blood glucose concentration (_P_ < 0.05). In conclusion, F is more effective than CHO to increase muscular oxidative capacity and at the same time enhances exercise-induced net IMCL degradation. In addition, F but not CHO prevented drop of blood glucose concentration during fasting exercise.


Beneficial metabolic adaptations due to endurance exercise training in the fasted state | Journal of Applied Physiology




> Minimising carbohydrate (CHO) status in the peri-training period may accelerate the training adaptations normally observed. The aim of this study was to compare adaptations to endurance training undertaken in the acutely CHO fed and overnight-fasted states. Eight female and six male untrained, healthy participants: aged 26.6+/-5.8 years (mean+/-SD); height 174.7+/-7.6 cm; weight 75.3+/-11.4 kg; VO(2max) 3.48+/-0.67 l/min; were randomly divided into two training groups and undertook four weeks of five days per week endurance cycle ergometer training in either the overnight-fasted (FAST) or acutely fed (FED) state. FAST training had no effect on RER or plasma glucose, lactate and FFA concentrations during subsequent submaximal exercise. Training-induced changes in Vastus lateralis citrate synthase (CS) and 3-hydroxy-CoA dehydrogenase (HAD) activities were not different between training groups (P=0.655 and 0.549, respectively), but when the effect of gender was considered, men responded better to FAST and women responded better to FED. The FAST group showed a significantly greater training-induced increase in VO(2max) and resting muscle glycogen concentration than FED (P=0.014 and P=0.047 respectively), but there was no gender interaction. In conclusion, these results suggest that (a) meal ingestion prior to daily exercise can modify some of the exercise training-induced adaptations normally seen with endurance training compared to when daily exercise is undertaken in the overnight-fasted state; and (b) the extent of these adaptations in skeletal muscle differ slightly between men and women.


Adaptations to skeletal muscle with enduranc... [J Sci Med Sport. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI




> In previously untrained males performance and various muscular adaptations were evaluated before and after 8 weeks of supervised endurance training conducted either with (n = 8; CHO group) or without (n = 7; placebo) glucose supplementation.
> 
> *RESULTS:* The two groups achieved similar improvements in maximal oxygen uptake and peak power output during incremental cycling (both parameters elevated by 17% on average) and both groups lost approximately 3 kg of fat mass during the 8 weeks of training. An equal reduction in respiratory exchange ratio (0.02 units) during submaximal exercise was observed in both groups. Beta-hydroxyacyl-CoA-dehydrogenase activity was increased in both groups, however, to a larger extent in the placebo group (45 +/- 11%) than CHO (23 +/- 9%, P < 0.05). GLUT-4 protein expression increased by 74 +/- 14% in the placebo group and 45 +/- 14% in CHO (both P < 0.05), *while resting muscle glycogen increased (P < 0.05) to a larger extent in the placebo* group (96 +/- 4%) than CHO (33 +/- 2%).


Impact of carbohydrate supplementation du... [Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

And I have already posted the link to the USA Cycling article mentioniong about physiolgic and metabolic adaptaions, though that article did not specifically mention about fasted training.

On a related note, here is a study about taking in too much sugar (glucose) and how the subsequent insulin spike can cause faster usage of glycogen:



> *ABSTRACT*
> 
> Seven men were studied during 30 min of treadmill exercise (approximately 70% VO2 max) to determine the effects of increased availability of plasma free fatty acids (FFA) and elevated plasma insulin on the utilization of muscle glycogen. This elevation of plasma FFA (1.01 mmol/1) with heparin (2,000 units) decreased the rate of muscle glycogen depletion by 40% as compared to the control experiment (FFA = 0.21 mmol/1). The ingestion of 75 g of glucose 45 min before exercise produced a 3.3-fold increase in plasma insulin and a 38% rise in plasma glucose at 0 min of exercise. Subsequent exercise increased muscle glycogen utilization and total carbohydrate (CHO) oxidation 17 and 13%, respectively, when compared to the control trial. This elevation of plasma insulin produced hypoglycemia (less than 3.5 mmol/1) in most subjects throughout the exercise. These data illustrate the regulatory influence of both plasma insulin and FFA on the rate of CHO usage during prolonged severe muscular activity.


Effects of elevated plasma FFA and insulin on muscle glycogen usage during exercise | Journal of Applied Physiology

And this makes sense because insulin inhibits fat oxidation and drives carbohydrate oxidation (thereby depleting glycogen at a faster rate). In other word, you don't want to dump a load of carbs into your guts and thereby causing an insulin spike.



> *Insulin inhibits breakdown of fat in adipose tissue* by inhibiting the intracellular lipase that hydrolyzes triglycerides to release fatty acids.Insulin facilitates entry of glucose into adipocytes, and within those cells, glucose can be used to synthesize glycerol. This glycerol, along with the fatty acids delivered from the liver, are used to synthesize triglyceride within the adipocyte. By these mechanisms, insulin is involved in further accumulation of triglyceride in fat cells.
> *From a whole body perspective, insulin has a fat-sparing effect.* Not only does it drive most cells to preferentially oxidize carbohydrates instead of fatty acids for energy, insulin indirectly stimulates accumulation of fat in adipose tissue.


Physiologic Effects of Insulin


What do these studies have to do with the OP and this whole thread? I had contended that the OP's real issue is not food, but rather his fitness condition, and what he needs to do in order to improve his fitness, based on science. If fitness is the issue, then simply eating more will not help. And yes, I'm well aware of the rudimentary fact that that you need to eat to have energy to walk and even to sleep.

Anyway the science is out there. Personally, I always prefer to train in a fasted state if work schedule allows it. This works for me no question about it. I find that the hardest part is probably dealing with the psychological feeling of "hunger" when you *think* you need to eat, but it is this time that you should keep going. Some people can't deal with this and so they prefer not to train in fasted state. That's fine too. I think I have said enough.</snipped...>


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> Here are some evidence from a few different studies.


And here is a good critique of (some of) that science. There doesn't appear to be a clear advantage to endurance training in a fasted state.

Is it better to do aerobic exercise fasted? | Examine.com FAQ


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

I'm more curious about anaerobic training in fast state, just because there's a nearby hill that I can ride up every morning well before I'd have time to digest my breakfast, so I might as well just eat a fruit and go ride, then have the full breakfast when I come back.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Dunbar said:


> And here is a good critique of (some of) that science. There doesn't appear to be a clear advantage to endurance training in a fasted state.
> 
> Is it better to do aerobic exercise fasted? | Examine.com FAQ


The critique said that the fasted group has a clear advantage in fat metabolism. There isn't one souce in that critique claiming that the fed group has a better fat metabolism. Is a better fat metabolism not an advantage for endurance? Of course it is.


The critique says this:



> Over time, fasted training may underperform peri-workout carbohydrate for improving VO2 max (training adaptations),[4]although this is somewhat contested as another study with similar results found no significant difference.[


...and it used the result of referenced study #4



> The FAST group showed a significantly greater training-induced increase in VO(2max) and resting muscle glycogen concentration than FED (P=0.014 and P=0.047 respectively)


...and then used the result of referenced study #5 as a counter-claim to #4




> Furthermore, maximal citrate synthase (+47%) and β-hydroxyacyl coenzyme A dehydrogenase (+34%) activity was significantly upregulated in F (P < 0.05) but not in CHO. Also, only F prevented the development exercise-induced drop in blood glucose concentration (P < 0.05). In conclusion, F is more effective than CHO to increase muscular oxidative capacity and at the same time enhances exercise-induced net IMCL degradation. In addition, F but not CHO prevented drop of blood glucose concentration during fasting exercise.




....and based on the above 2 studies, here is what the author of the critique concludes (in his own words)




> In submaximal exercise, there may be no differences at all between fasted and fed training. During maximal exercise attempts (which may include intense resistance training or high intensity interval training) being fed with carbohydrates appears to be more beneficial than fasted training for the purpose of enhancing adaptations to training




But The two referenced studies #4 and #5 (quote above) basically concluded that fasted training had a clear advantage in submaximal adaptation.

Furthermore, in the critique's own conclusion (above), he also cited this study (below) to support his own claim that the carb-fed group would do better in maximal exercise:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14748459

...and when I read the study myself, this is what it concluded




> In conclusion, the ingestion of 75 g of carbohydrate 45 min before the onset of exercise decreased Fatmax by 14%, while the maximal rate of fat oxidation decreased by 28%.




This is a clear *degrade* in endurance performance for the fed group. I'm not sure how the critique can interpret a decrease in fat oxidation as an increased in endurance performance?? 

The only shread of data from this same study that say carb-fed group had an advantage over the fasted group is in the maximal power category:




> Maximal power output was higher in the carbohydrate than in the placebo trial (346 +/- 12 vs 332 +/- 12 W) (P < 0.05)




..but here, we're talking about a maximal power of 346W (fed group) versus 332W (fasted group), a measely 4% difference in maximal power. Now, from an endurance point of view, why would anyone what to gain a measly 4% at maximal output for a few brief seconds, while giving up the benefit of a sustain fat oxidation (and therefore glycogen presevation) for the duration of the exercise? 

Does the author think this as an advantage? I certain do not. The trade off is too much.

Not one study cited concluded that any fed group perform better under aerobic condition. If anything, all the studies cited favor fasted state training if the goal is aerobic (fat oxidation).

And no one is saying to do fasted training only without changes in routines. Even the most hardcore endurance athletes mix in high-intesity, maximal effort, VO2max effort, in his training regime.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

myhui said:


> I'm more curious about anaerobic training in fast state, just because there's a nearby hill that I can ride up every morning well before I'd have time to digest my breakfast, so I might as well just eat a fruit and go ride, then have the full breakfast when I come back.


Fasted state training is best used for aerobic. The more anerobic you go, the more glycogen is used, and if you use up your glycogen before you can actually train for any length of duration, well then you're not really training efficienty.

If you want anaerobic, then eat 4 hours beforehand and then go hit that hill. This will top of your glycogen stores while at the same time allow all food to empty your stomach (you want low insulin level).


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> If you want anaerobic, then eat 4 hours beforehand and then go hit that hill. This will top of your glycogen stores while at the same time allow all food to empty your stomach (you want low insulin level).


OK, I'll eat at 1:30pm today, go poop at 5pm, and be among the pack at Skypark Circle at 5:30pm.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

myhui said:


> OK, I'll eat at 1:30pm today, go poop at 5pm, and be among the pack at Skypark Circle at 5:30pm.


atta boy!


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

aclinjury said:


> atta boy!


You are my personal chemist.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> The critique said that the fasted group has a clear advantage in fat metabolism. There isn't one souce in that critique claiming that the fed group has a better fat metabolism. Is a better fat metabolism not an advantage for endurance? Of course it is.


It says that *during exercise* fat metabolism is higher in the fasted state. But what happens in the 24 hours following exercise? Your body will replenish the fat stores (there was no significant weight difference between the two groups during the study period.) If your goal is fat loss it's best to do it through what you eat off the bike. Furthermore, if you carb load before a maximal effort you lose all of these supposed benefits of fasted riding!



> This is a clear *degrade* in endurance performance for the fed group. I'm not sure how the critique can interpret a decrease in fat oxidation as an increased in endurance performance??


Again, that has to do with the RQ of the riders (glycogen vs. fat usage) which says nothing about performance.



> ..but here, we're talking about a maximal power of 346W (fed group) versus 332W (fasted group), a measely 4% difference in maximal power. Now, from an endurance point of view, why would anyone what to gain a measly 4% at maximal output for a few brief seconds, while giving up the benefit of a sustain fat oxidation (and therefore glycogen presevation) for the duration of the exercise?


What is the advantage to using more fat during exercise? Your body will simply replenish those fat stores in the hours following exercise unless you are in calorie deficit. Let me repeat myself. If your goal is to lose fat than it's best to do it through the composition of your diet off the bike. These studies only looked fasted exercise at sub-maximal intensities. They did not attempt to see if this benefit carried over to maximal efforts in a fasted state. And of course a maximal effort in a fasted state is setting yourself up for a bonk! Go ahead and race your bike in a fasted state and let us know how it goes


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Dunbar said:


> *It says that *during exercise* fat metabolism is higher in the fasted state.* But what happens in the 24 hours following exercise? Your body will replenish the fat stores (there was no significant weight difference between the two groups during the study period.) If your goal is fat loss it's best to do it through what you eat off the bike. Furthermore, if you carb load before a maximal effort you lose all of these supposed benefits of fasted riding!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's an advantage for an endurance athlete to able to train his system so that it would burn fat as much as possible, or to put it another way, to spare as much glycogen as possible, and only use glycogen when higher intensity is necessary. All serious endurance and ultra-endurance athletes understand this. It's one of the main pillars in endurance training. Furthermore, I have also mentioned that your body has a much more limited amount of glycogen when compared to fat, and that replenishing the depleted glycogen store during an exercise is a huge problem in and of itself because your body can only process about 200-250 calories of carbs per hour, while you can exert a workload that is higher than this caloric amount. So therefore, the strategy is to spare the glycogen as much as possible, and when you are looking to spare glycogen, you must look to fat. That is why most endurance athletes train in zone 2/3, and not in zone 4/5. This is not to say they do not train in zone 4/5.

Do you not consider the higher fat oxidation adapation as an advantage in endurance sports? It appears that you do not. I guess this is where you and I have a different view on what constitutes a "performance advantage" when it comes to endurance adaptations. 

And of course these studies looked at fasted training at submaximal effort. It is at submaximal efforts that all endurance athletes operate at, and so it only makes sense that it is also at submaximal levels that these studies would focus their effort on. Do you ride at maximal, all out, effort on a ride or race? Most guys can't even ride at threshold for 1 hr, much less at maximal.

In addition, training is a fasted state is not the same as training in a starved state. You will not bonk if done correctly. If you bonk, then you have a bad training plan, or perhaps you can't stand the psychological effect that it demands. And trust me, as one who does a lot of both fasted training and high intensity training, it is much much easier to give up the fasted training because it drains on your mind and body, and it will put doubts in your mind as fatigue creeps in. Where as with high intensity training, you know it's over in a few minutes.

Well I have pretty much say all I wanted to say. I have cited all the studies that I think back up my position. And I have given my critique/comments on the article to which you have linked, and have explained that even the studies cited in that critique article concluded positively for fasted training. (It is the author of the article who made a conclusion that is clearly not supported by the data he cited).

(And note, I did not say the goal of fasted training is to "lose fat".)


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> Do you not consider the higher fat oxidation adapation as an advantage in endurance sports? It appears that you do not. I guess this is where you and I have a different view on what constitutes a "performance advantage" when it comes to endurance adaptations.


The problem is that the studies only looked at (sub-maximal) performance in a fasted state. It did not look at what happened to performance in these individuals when carb loaded state. So we have no idea if fasted training actually results in glycogen/fat usage outside of this one particular scenario. The goal of training is to get faster/stronger. What percent of fuel comes from glycogen and fat stores during easier training rides might be interesting but isn't terribly relevant to race day performance...



> And of course these studies looked at fasted training at submaximal effort. It is at submaximal efforts that all endurance athletes operate at, and so it only makes sense that it is also at submaximal levels that these studies would focus their effort on. Do you ride at maximal, all out, effort on a ride or race? Most guys can't even ride at threshold for 1 hr, much less at maximal.


See above. We don't know how this training affects performance on longer/harder duration efforts because the studies didn't attempt to answer that question. Most people put up their highest AP/NP power numbers during races whether it's a crit, road race or TT. That's the whole point of training.



> In addition, training is a fasted state is not the same as training in a starved state. You will not bonk if done correctly. If you bonk, then you have a bad training plan, or perhaps you can't stand the psychological effect that it demands.


I'm just pointing out that the studies do not show any benefit to fasted training. That's all.



> Well I have pretty much say all I wanted to say. I have cited all the studies that I think back up my position. And I have given my critique/comments on the article to which you have linked, and have explained that even the studies cited in that critique article concluded positively for fasted training. (It is the author of the article who made a conclusion that is clearly not supported by the data he cited).


Your studies don't show what you think they do. As the Tour De France starts this coming weekend I suppose all the carbs the racers will be shoving down their throats would not be necessary if they would just do more training in a fasted state...


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> All serious endurance and ultra-endurance athletes understand this. It's one of the main pillars in endurance training.


I consider myself a fairly serious endurance athlete. I've certainly trained and competed with some very serious endurance athletes...

And of those very serious athletes do you know how many have ever mentioned anything about training in a fasted state? 

None. 

Now to be fair, I haven't gone out of my way to ask each one of these several hundred athletes their opinion on the matter, but if it's such a "pillar" of the sport I would have thought it to be slightly more important. I mean, long rides and long race weekends give lots of opportunity to delve into some seriously silly details about training and racing yet this, to my recollection, has never come up.

I'll pose my question again since you ignored it previously. If the body has to be "taught" to burn fat to be successful at endurance activities, how are so many people so successful without doing any this fasted nonsense you keep raving on about?

Cue the crickets...


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

myhui said:


> You are my personal chemist.


Alchemist?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Runabike, I did say I'm not wasting my time on you anymore. My bad for curiously clicking on your hidden post and replying back. My cited studies bow in front of your endurance palmares. Out.


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Dunbar said:


> It says that *during exercise* fat metabolism is higher in the fasted state. But what happens in the 24 hours following exercise? Your body will replenish the fat stores (there was no significant weight difference between the two groups during the study period.) If your goal is fat loss it's best to do it through what you eat off the bike. Furthermore, if you carb load before a maximal effort you lose all of these supposed benefits of fasted riding!


I don't know if I agree with your last sentence. 

Here is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong: Many submaximal exercises can raise the body's metabolism during the exercise. But HIIT and anaerobic exercise (sprints, weight training) can raise the metabolism for up to 48hours after the workout. 


I know that's just one more rabbit hole in this entire discussion. But is there a consensus there?


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> Here is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong: Many submaximal exercises can raise the body's metabolism during the exercise. But HIIT and anaerobic exercise (sprints, weight training) can raise the metabolism for up to 48hours after the workout.


I don't know, but I suspect if it does it's probably not by much. 

I was responding to aclinjury's extrapolation of one study data point to all riding conditions. Just because a fasted rider burns more fat during endurance exercise that does not mean they will burn more fat in all riding conditions. Therefore it doesn't necessarily demonstrate a benefit to training fasted. Furthermore, I don't know many racers interested in actually winning turning up to a race fasted (you know, because of the whole bonk thing.) There was no difference in weight between the two study groups and little/no difference in power output. So it begs the question - where is the research demonstrating a benefit?


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Dunbar said:


> I don't know, but I suspect if it does it's probably not by much.
> 
> I was responding to aclinjury's extrapolation of one study data point to all riding conditions. Just because a fasted rider burns more fat during endurance exercise that does not mean they will burn more fat in all riding conditions. Therefore it doesn't necessarily demonstrate a benefit to training fasted. Furthermore, I don't know many racers interested in actually winning turning up to a race fasted (you know, because of the whole bonk thing.) There was no difference in weight between the two study groups and little/no difference in power output. So it begs the question - where is the research demonstrating a benefit?


First of all, now where did I say that this would work for all riding conditions. Did I not mention that this is for endurance? Is cycling a mainly endurance sport? And is it also not true that for most of the time, riders/racers will be performing at a submaximal level? And would you not want to spare glycogen during submaximal level so that you can expend it during threshold and above threshold level for that final 30 minute climb?

The experiments demonstrated a advantageous physiologic adaptation at submaximal level, which will is glycogen sparing, which in turn will allow for more glycogen at threshold and beyond. If you use up too much glycogen at submaximal just to get to the bottom of a climb, what do you think will happen to your glycogen reserve during the 30-min climb? It will run out. And do you really think that if you're out of glycogen in a 30-min climb, taking a gel would be fast enough to restore the glycogen stores? The answer is no.

The research clearly shows the benefit. And by the way you're framing your questions, you seem to have trouble interlinking all the science together.

for example, you say



> Just because a fasted rider burns more fat during endurance exercise that does not mean they will burn more fat in all riding conditions.


The whole point of fat oxidation adaptation is not so that he can burn more fat in training versus riding in a race. The whole point of the adaptation is so that he can spare glycogen during the race, and for the next day, and the next, and glycogen means recovery. I don't how to explain this any clearer short of telling you to go buy a physiology 101 textbook.


then you also say:



> I don't know many racers interested in actually winning turning up to a race fasted


And you don't seem to distinguish the difference between training and racing. Training is to elicit an favorable adaptation. It is not what you do in a race. However, the adaption will work to your advantage while in a race too (whether you want to see this as advantage is up to you).

What is clear is that there are scientific literatures published on this matter, and NONE of them so far cited have say anything negative about it. In fact, just the fact that these studies were conducted and results published should tell you that at some point in the past, athletes and coaches have tried it, had questions about its efficacy,.. and then the science came along to answer their questions, or try to as best as it is practically conductable.

Can you cite studies as a counter point? I would like to see the science behind your opinions. So far, you have not cited anything. (And the one crtique you did cite, I showed that the author was wrong in his conclusion based on the studies he used).


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

I went back and looked at all the quotes I cited, and I thought that was pretty overwhelming amount of information to digest. So let's make this simple. Here are just a few key adaptations concluded from the studies:



> · Training with limited carbohydrate availability can stimulate adaptations in muscle cells to facilitate energy production via fat oxidation
> 
> · In conclusion, F [fasted] is more effective than CHO to increase muscular oxidative capacity and at the same time enhances exercise-induced net IMCL degradation.
> 
> ...


Is there any physiological reason not to see these adaptations as a clear advantage in the context of endurance?


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> Runabike, I did say I'm not wasting my time on you anymore. My bad for curiously clicking on your hidden post and replying back. My cited studies bow in front of your endurance palmares. Out.


There seems to be a disconnect from what you think you're reading and what is actually employed in the real world. 

Funny how some people get like that.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

Dunbar said:


> So it begs the question - where is the research demonstrating a benefit?


That's the entire crux of the matter that acl so blithely ignores. 

He's so adamant about this being a "pillar" of endurance but completely ignores the blatant fact that it is wholly unnecessary as just about everyone that rides so clearly demonstrates on a daily basis.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> I went back and looked at all the quotes I cited, and I thought that was pretty overwhelming amount of information to digest. So let's make this simple. Here are just a few key adaptations concluded from the studies...Is there any physiological reason not to see these adaptations as a clear advantage in the context of endurance?
> 
> _1) Training with limited carbohydrate availability can stimulate adaptations in muscle cells to facilitate energy production via fat oxidation
> 
> ...


1) We don't know what adaptations fasted riding stimulates outside of the one situation the study looked at - sub-maximal training in a fasted state. We don't know if that translates into increased fat oxidation in other situations like fed race day performance.

2) Again, we don't know if fasted training burns more fat outside of the one particular scenario tested in the study - fasted training at sub-maximal intensities. 

3) What is the relevance of blood glucose concentrations during sub-maximal training? I'm not asking for theories here. I want to see scientific research that demonstrates a benefit.

4) That was a study of 14 participants. Not a large enough sample size to draw meaningful conclusions from. Also, the other study that showed fed riders were 4% more powerful than fasted riders seems to contradict this finding.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Dunbar said:


> 1) We don't know what adaptations fasted riding stimulates outside of the one situation the study looked at - sub-maximal training in a fasted state. We don't know if that translates into increased fat oxidation in other situations like fed race day performance.
> 
> 2) Again, we don't know if fasted training burns more fat outside of the one particular scenario tested in the study - fasted training at sub-maximal intensities.
> 
> ...


1) It's pretty much impossible to measure a lot of these variables in race situation, unless the racers agree to be hooked up? You are asking for pie-in-they-sky data acquisition. Be realistic. That is why there are these studies. However, the physiology of human metabolism most likely apply. This is physiology. The body does not know the difference between a person riding a race bike or a person riding an ergometer. There have been plenty of other studies regarding to human physiology and kinetics done in lab and then results being tried in the field.

2) I listed 4 different studies, with all 4 studies supporting the same conclusions regarding the fat oxidation adaptation. And furhtermore, I have said that this is not about "burning more fat" as you keep focusing on, but it is more about eliciting an adaptation that would be advantageous for endurance athlete. You yourself have not denied their benefits, but you seem to keep focus on the obssession of "lab test" versus "race reality". Does GM test their vehicles using live humans on regular freeways? Of course not. GM uses dummies and mocked up accident situation and a battering ram in a lab, but then apply their results to real world vehicles. Same goes with many studies in science. This is no different. This is how science is practically done. Nobody is going to hookup a facemask to a racer on the Tour de France so you can get your real-world data.

3) Are you serious that you do not know the relevance of glucose level during exercise, submaximal or not (and this applies even as you sleep)? Glucose level is one of the most tightly controlled variables in the body, and glucose is what powers your muscles, and your brain. Too low a level, and your muscles will start to fade, and you start to blackout in the brain. Too high a level, and you become diabetic. This is basic physiology, stuff they teach you in physio 101. You only need to google about glucose to find out what it is doing in your body. I'm surprised that you ask basic question about the role of glucose given that we're talking about food and feeding before a ride. The pasta, the gel, the power bar, that you eat, ultimately is glucose.

4) As I have stated, I posted 4 different studies, and all studies pointed to the same general results. Also, since you mentioned it, I feel that I must correct you. You said that the fed riders were "4% more powerful". If you go back and read one of my earlier posts, I did mention this fact. But I also explained that 4% more power is at *maximal* level (see the study for yourself). And at maximal level, even the most power sprinters may only last about 10-30 seconds, and that it is *not* at maximal level that endurance racers are operating at most of the time. It is as submaximal level that they operate at most of the time, and it is at submaximal that they are looking to burn fat so that they can conserve the glycogen when they must use it (eg, attack on the final climb at above threshold). And in the *same* study, the fasted-group showed a *higher *ablity to use fat as fuel at submaximal level (at the cost of giving 4% at maximal level which only last 10-30 seconds). Is this not an advantage for the fasted group? Go back and read that study for yourself.


I have cited all the studies that I think support my case. I have provided explanations and comments to most of your questions. I have even taken the time to comment on the one "critique article" that you linked from the Examine web page, and explained to you why that author was wrong because the data and conclusions of his own cited sources stated the opposite of what he claimed. I have asked that it's your turn to provide some studies that would dispute or contradict any of the studies I have cited, and I have not seen you cite one study yet. Care to cite a study for me? (The critique article you cited was not a study. At best it was somebody attempting to explaining something after fasted training, and he got it wrong because he himself did not understand how to interpret data).

At this point, I would like to respectfully bow out of this debate as I see it as a mostly onesided debate. It's easy for you to keep asking me physiology 101 questions, or to cite dubiously and poorly writen article (such as that critique article),.. and then I would forced to necessarily spend more time than I care to put in explaining basic physiology principle or debunking hack website.. and even after my effort, you then you still have a hard time connecting the dots. I don't blame you though because many biology college students themselves have hard times grasping carbohydrate and fat metabolism and how the two are involved in the role of total energy production. Now if you can come up with orgiginal studies, from major journals or science website, that contradict the studies I have cited, then I will gladly continue the debate as I'm open to new findings. Please note, I spent a lot of time quality control checking the studies that I cited. I did not just give you garbage studies for bro science. At least respect me and do your own part and cite some studies of your own. (And please don't bother with citing third party reviews, or worse, bro science reviews and critique. I think I'm quite capable of reading orginal papers).


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Here is a little anecdote of 2 pretty well trained athletes (one a cyclist, one a runner), who expreimented with mixing in high-intensity training and fasted training in their 4 week trial routine. This is not a scientific study. But these guys do present an intriguing anecdote.

gommaardhulst | A topnotch WordPress.com site



And here is just somebody's blog about Wiggins training fasted. Just a blog.



> Endurance athletes can learn from 2012 Tour winner Bradley Wiggins, 33, who performed fasted training to teach his body to better metabolise fat for fuel so he could survive 3496km of cycling over 21 days. “You get more energy per gram of fat than you do of carbohydrate, so fat is a much better fuel source,” says nutritionist Dr James Morton. “Performing fasted training at 70 percent of your VO2 max will teach your body to burn fat for fuel and encourage your muscles to make more enzymes to metabolise that fat.”


TOUR SECRETS - JournalsBlog.com


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

There's some good back and forth here. I just want to say that as someone who has actually helped out in scientific studies that used human subjects, I am not convinced by arguments that the sample size was too small. While there are many large studies, the majority of studies using human subjects have smallish sample sizes. We can use statistics to determine if the change we see is significant.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> 1) It's pretty much impossible to measure a lot of these variables in race situation, unless the racers agree to be hooked up? You are asking for pie-in-they-sky data acquisition. Be realistic.


Is it really that hard to put them on an ergometer and have them ride at FTP for an hour?



> 2) I listed 4 different studies, with all 4 studies supporting the same conclusions regarding the fat oxidation adaptation. And furhtermore, I have said that this is not about "burning more fat" as you keep focusing on, but it is more about eliciting an adaptation that would be advantageous for endurance athlete.


I'm just pointing out that just because you can observe more fat utilization in a fasted state while training that does not mean such training will cause changes in the way your body uses fat/glycogen outside of that one scenario. You would need to actually study that and see if there was a change in the physiology of the riders training fasted.



> 3) Are you serious that you do not know the relevance of glucose level during exercise, submaximal or not (and this applies even as you sleep)? Glucose level is one of the most tightly controlled variables in the body, and glucose is what powers your muscles, and your brain.


Again, what were the differences in blood glucose levels? Maybe they were statistically significant but meaningless in the context of performance. Glucose levels rise and fall over the course of our normal daily lives. That doesn't mean we're all on the verge of diabetes. You know what else happens if you let your glucose levels get too low? You bonk. You know what a good way to bonk is? Intentionally riding your bike too long without topping off your glycogen stores.



> 4) And in the *same* study, the fasted-group showed a *higher *ablity to use fat as fuel at submaximal level (at the cost of giving 4% at maximal level which only last 10-30 seconds). Is this not an advantage for the fasted group? Go back and read that study for yourself.


So ~350 watts considered zone 7 power that can only be maintained for 10-30 seconds?


As far as your Wiggins example, maybe his TDF win was due to the extreme dieting he did that year to get his weight down. I believe he has said that he doesn't think he could ever do that volume of training again do to amount the time away from his family it required. I've also heard that the TDF course that year was flatter which benefits a guy like Wiggins. So maybe fasted training helped with win the Tour win. Or maybe it was just an interesting anecdote that had nothing to do with it...


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Dunbar said:


> Is it really that hard to put them on an ergometer and have them ride at FTP for an hour?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You should also keep in mind why the researchers did the experiments/studies they did. It's usually because somebody, or coaches, or athletes, or research institute, were initially curious about a certain training technique to elicit a certain adaptation. These studies are peer-reviewed studies, meaning that their peers, which are people with PhDs, university professors, experts, etc.. have reviewed them, and they certainly would not be published on in major journals unless they have academia values and/or potential real world application. Otherwise, they wouldn't be funded in the first place.

The fact that you have not been able to google up any peer-reviewed study that would counter these studies.. only serves further to confirm that such counter-studies do not exist, or if they do exist, then they might not have been rigorous enough to be published in a major peer-reviewed journal. 

I have done a good search on NIH, PubMed database, journal of Applied Physiology, and I have yet to see one study that counter all the studies I have cited. Not one. 

Well, there is a study on Ramadan athletes fasting, and how that affect their performance, particularly in soccer. Muslims have their Ramadan month where they would go without food from sunrise to sunset. So this means that they would wake up around 3:30 - 4:00 AM to prepare breakfast, and would not eat again until sunset. From sunrise to sunset is well over 12 hrs long during the summer months. And they do this for 30 days consecutively. Under this sort of fasting, then it appears that their performance did deteriorate. But this sort of fasting is more extreme than the fasted-training regime of the studies since the cyclists were free to eat (and refuel) after their fasted exercise.

The Ramadan study is the only study I have found that such extreme fasting prove to be detrimental.  And it is not surprising. The goal is to "deprive" your body of just enough food (glucose/glycoge) so that it can adapt, but not so much that now you're starting to kill it. If anything, the Ramadan study showed that the Muslim Ramadan fasting style was too extreme and detrimental, beyond the purpose of eliciting an adaptation.

Honestly I would like to continue on if this was a Q&A style of thread. But I think this debate between you and I has outlived its usefulness. And yes for my part, I have tried to search for a counter-study and have not seen one, except for the Ramadan study which I discussed above and how that was too extreme.

=====================

Now I just want to answer one of your questions above because I think it deserve an explanation.

You said:


> You would need to actually study that and see if there was a change in the physiology of the riders training fasted.


The change in their physiology was inferred by taking measurements of things like Wattage, CO2/O2 gas exchange, glucose level. This inference works. Nobody is going to be able to drill down to the cellular levels and observed the actual change in chemical reactions involved in metabolism.

Also, getting a good number of pro-athletes to all cooperate in a research is very very difficult if not impossible due to the schedules of both the athletes and researchers. That is why the researchers prefer to use "regular humans". And as it turns out, what apply to regular humans, apply to pro's too in many cases. The pros and their coaches can decide to try it or not, it's up to them. It's like what I said about GM testing their cars for safety standards. Much easier to test rigged up cars in a lab with dummies and battering ram, then to test on the streets with a live human, although the live human would provide "real world" data. Doesn't mean it's gonna happen. Research is like that sometimes.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Dunbar,

It sort of occured to me what you really wanted to ask regarding a testing procedure that would completely satisfy your requirement for testing standard. 

There is this thing call "metabolic ward". It's basically a confinement (eg, a hospital) where the doctors keep track of every calorie you consume.

There is also this thing call "indirect calorimetry". Basically, it involves a very small room, sealed off to the world. Inside this sealed room are very very sensitive sensors that measure expired/inspired difference between CO2 and O2. And from these measurements, one can calculate exactly how much energy, and infer what fuel source, the person is using.

If you put a pro athlete under metabolic ward watch, and also put him in one of these in indirect calorimetry room, and experiment with him, have him on the ergometer, control his feeding schedules, his precise food intake,,, for a month... well this is THE gold standard of data collection! 

And you would need to do this not just for 1 pro athlete, but for a group of maybe 14-20 athletes (the bigger the N sample, the better the quality of your data). There are I believe only like maybe 14-16 of these indirect calorimetry rooms in the entire North American continent. So, unless Team Sky or some very rich pro team wants to pony up a few million dollars for such a study, it's not happening.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> The fact that you have not been able to google up any peer-reviewed study that would counter these studies.. only serves further to confirm that such counter-studies do not exist, or if they do exist, then they might not have been rigorous enough to be published in a major peer-reviewed journal.


Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how this works. I'm not the one claiming fasted riding improves performance. You are, therefore the burden of proof is on you. It's not logically possible to prove a negative.

Most of the studies you posted looked at the physiology of fasted versus fed training. The relevant question to athletes is whether or not there is a performance benefit to fasted training. The whole point of training is to get faster/stronger.

On the blood glucose point I just went back and read the abstract on that study. They fed the riders a total of ~230-250g of carbohydrates right before and during the ride. That's 800-1000 calories of carbs which is quite a glycemic load. You would expect the insulin levels to fluctuate in those individuals compared to fasted riders. It's completely normal. What that has to do with performance was not a question they were looking to answer.

As far as fat vs. glycogen usage of endurance athletes it's pretty easy to determine by measuring respiratory quotient (RQ). Yes, if you want to know the exact calorie consumption you have to put them in a metabolic chamber. But if all you want to know is the breakdown of fat vs. glycogen RQ works just fine.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Dunbar said:


> Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how this works. I'm not the one claiming fasted riding improves performance. *You are, therefore the burden of proof is on you.* It's not logically possible to prove a negative.
> 
> Most of the studies you posted looked at the physiology of fasted versus fed training. The relevant question to athletes is whether or not there is a performance benefit to fasted training. *The whole point of training is to get faster/stronger.*
> 
> ...


1)
I claimed it, and provided 4 studies to backup my position. On top of that, there is NO study out there that I can search on PubMed and NIH that disputes any of the studies I cited. Therefore, it's not illogical for me not to accept the 4 studies as generally true. If there was a study that should prove otherwise, don't you think it might have been published already? Or are you not satisfied until I can list 100 studies to back me up? Sorry, but when all studies show something as generally true, then further research is generally not done until some counter-case comes up. Research is money limited.

2)
yes the whole point is to get faster/stronger. You want to define stronger in the context of endurance for me? since I'm not quite sure what you mean by stronger in this context. But to me, in an endurance event, "stronger" here means I can getto the base of a climb and still has lots of glycogen reserve left. More glycogen means I can go harder, and longer, into threshold and beyond, than you can. Period.


3)
Regarding glucose. You also ignore the 3 other experiments. It doesn't matter if the fed groups took the carb 90 mins or 3 hours before the exercise, all the fed groups underperformed compared to the fasted groups. And this has everything to do with the question that we've been discussing about, that is: Does training in a fasted state elicit a benefical adaptation to fat oxidation. And the answer so far is a yes, if your goal is endurance.

Now does this advantage actually translate into real world result? This is another matter. Real world performance and win depend on many other factors (eg, team strategy, wind condition, bike handling skills, etc) beside the condition of the athletes. But this is just about the only argument/scenario you can pose. You have no argument against cold hard data, data is data.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

Dunbar said:


> Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how this works. I'm not the one claiming fasted riding improves performance. You are, therefore the burden of proof is on you. It's not logically possible to prove a negative.


Let's imagine that the people still reading this thread are scientific-minded folks interested in the subject, rather than people on the internet trying to "win" an argument.
Acl's been more than fair in responding with useful information rather than trying to "win". You could do the courtesy of replying in kind. Finding studies showing that fasted training does not cause increased fat utilization at some power outputs would educate the readers.



Dunbar said:


> Most of the studies you posted looked at the physiology of fasted versus fed training. The relevant question to athletes is whether or not there is a performance benefit to fasted training. The whole point of training is to get faster/stronger.


Being able to utilize more fat at a given power output is a competitive advantage, as has been explained previously. For long races it could be a very important. In my case I have difficulty keeping up with my eating in the long races I enjoy. When I have not done so I have lost places and even had to abandon. Not needing to eat as much could be very useful for me.


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

What about all those early morning rides around the neighborhood that start at 8AM?

Do the riders really eat at 5:30AM?

Or do they eat a small meal, easily digested, immediately prior to the ride? If that's the case, then they're effectively training while fasting.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

ericm979 said:


> Acl's been more than fair in responding with useful information rather than trying to "win". You could do the courtesy of replying in kind. Finding studies showing that fasted training does not cause increased fat utilization at some power outputs would educate the readers.


I have better things to do than try to prove a negative. I still have not seen any studies that show a *performance benefit* of fasted training. Certainly nothing posted in this thread demonstrates that.



> Being able to utilize more fat at a given power output is a competitive advantage, as has been explained previously. For long races it could be a very important. In my case I have difficulty keeping up with my eating in the long races I enjoy. When I have not done so I have lost places and even had to abandon. Not needing to eat as much could be very useful for me.


You're still missing the point. These studies compared fasted vs. fed training. That data is only relevant if you *race* fasted. If you show up on race day fed/carb loaded it's quite possible you go back to burning more glycogen and less fat. If you think racing fasted is a good idea than I'd suggest you tune into the Tour De France and look at how often the pros consume carbs during a race. Now if it's a 45-60 minute office park crit it probably doesn't matter either way (but put me in the carb load on race day camp...)


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

myhui said:


> Or do they eat a small meal, easily digested, immediately prior to the ride? If that's the case, then they're effectively training while fasting.


It depends on duration and intensity and everybody is different. Anything under 90 minutes probably doesn't matter. 2+ hours at moderate intensity I eat something before and sometimes a snack in the middle of the ride to keep from feeling ravenous. I'm not a breakfast eater myself which is one of the reasons I prefer to ride in the afternoon. If I go for even a hard 2 1/2 hour training ride right after lunch a lot of times all I consume is water.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

myhui said:


> What about all those early morning rides around the neighborhood that start at 8AM?
> 
> Do the riders really eat at 5:30AM?
> 
> Or do they eat a small meal, easily digested, immediately prior to the ride? If that's the case, then they're effectively training while fasting.


If this is your first time, then to maximize a fasted training, it's my opinion that you should plan to ride by yourself at zone 2/3 (and not harder than zone 3, or 70% "threshold") for 90 minutes. Then as you progress, you may increase the time to 2 hrs, and hold longer intensity duration but still keeping it at around 70%. If you have a trainer, it's even better to use it. Don't bother with group rides until you've a good feeling where you stand on energy. A group ride can force you into zone 4 and 5 easily and that's not efficient for fasted training, not to mention you might run out of juice. But if you should decide to go fasted with a group, then bring a gel just in case, and plan to peel off early if you have to. What I will do is sometimes I will go hard with a group for like 10-15 milels, then I will peel off and go by myself at zone 2/3 until I get home.

Yes riders do eat at 5:30. If I'm on a 100-120 miles, 10-12k ft climb, then I will eat a big breakfast at least 3 hrs before the ride.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

ericm979 said:


> Being able to utilize more fat at a given power output is a competitive advantage, as has been explained previously. For long races it could be a very important. In my case I have difficulty keeping up with my eating in the long races I enjoy. When I have not done so I have lost places and even had to abandon. Not needing to eat as much could be very useful for me.


Then that's just you not eating enough and is very easily remedied.

I've done multiple 100+ mile races and multiple long days of racing and never have a problem with nutrition and I never do any fasted training, nor have I heard of any one I'm racing with doing it.

It's simply not necessary but does give you a good opportunity to screw up your training. And for what? Again, nothing. Senseless.

If eating is difficult you might want to give some super-concentrated drinks a try, like mixing extra scoops of gatorade/drink powder in or something. Good to have the other bottle of just water, though, to swish around and get the other bottle down.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

myhui said:


> What about all those early morning rides around the neighborhood that start at 8AM?
> 
> Do the riders really eat at 5:30AM?
> 
> Or do they eat a small meal, easily digested, immediately prior to the ride? If that's the case, then they're effectively training while fasting.


For normal training and racing, I eat the night before. Then I eat in the morning before I roll out the door. And then I continue eating while riding. 

I understand that some people may have digestion issues, but there's no way on Earth I'd get up a couple of hours early just to eat before a big event. Nutrition before big events is taken care of in the days before, not the hours.


----------



## Guod (Jun 9, 2011)

aclinjury said:


> If this is your first time, then to maximize a fasted training, it's my opinion that you should plan to ride by yourself at zone 2/3 (and not harder than zone 3, or 70% "threshold") for 90 minutes. Then as you progress, you may increase the time to 2 hrs, and hold longer intensity duration but still keeping it at around 70%. If you have a trainer, it's even better to use it. Don't bother with group rides until you've a good feeling where you stand on energy. A group ride can force you into zone 4 and 5 easily and that's not efficient for fasted training, not to mention you might run out of juice. But if you should decide to go fasted with a group, then bring a gel just in case, and plan to peel off early if you have to. What I will do is sometimes I will go hard with a group for like 10-15 milels, then I will peel off and go by myself at zone 2/3 until I get home.
> 
> Yes riders do eat at 5:30. If I'm on a 100-120 miles, 10-12k ft climb, then I will eat a big breakfast at least 3 hrs before the ride.


Disclaimer: This does not work for everyone.

Also, this will do nothing to help you become efficient as a racer. If you can't ride for several hours without entering Z4, Z5 and blowing up, something is wrong. That means you need fuel.

The only thing you're advocating is doing something the hard way. If your only goal is to go out and see how long you can ride without eating, then you're doing a good job. But, for training and racing purposes, this will not work.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Dunbar said:


> I have better things to do than try to prove a negative. I still have not seen any studies that show a *performance benefit* of fasted training. Certainly nothing posted in this thread demonstrates that.
> 
> 
> 
> You're still missing the point. These studies compared fasted vs. fed training. That data is only relevant if you *race* fasted. If you show up on race day fed/carb loaded it's quite possible you go back to burning more glycogen and less fat. If you think racing fasted is a good idea than I'd suggest you tune into the Tour De France and look at how often the pros consume carbs during a race. Now if it's a 45-60 minute office park crit it probably doesn't matter either way (but put me in the carb load on race day camp...)


Let me understand this. You're suggesting that we look at how much carbs the pros eat during a race, and then from there deduct how much carbs they eat while training? Or to rephrase it, you're basically saying that we should eat a ton of carbs while training because that is the condition we race in. You don't understand the difference between training and racing do you? Should marathoners be running 26 miles on every training run because that is how they race in? 

The first goal of training is generally to get in shape (base training), then it's to elicit an advantageous adaptation,.. (and yes, higher VO2max, increase in glycogen storage capacity, are all seen as textbook advantages in endurance cycling)... then once the adaptations are acquired, continual training is still a must to maintain them. Rinse and repeat.

Then during a race, the guy who can eat *AND* still spare glycogen.. will have a higher chance of winning on the final mountain climb than the guy who also eats but while going into a *greater glycogen deficit because he did not have the same level of adaptation.* 

One thing I would like to point out and clear up is this. What the studies showed was that subjects who trained while fasting showed a *greater adaptation*. *Both types of subjects (fasted and fed) showed an adaptation after the training. It is just the case that the fasted ones showed a greater adaptation than fed ones. *The studies did *NOT* say that in order to keep this adaptation, the subject must be in a fasted state when racing. There were a few parameters that did not show improvement in fed subjects. For example, _Training did not affect IMCL breakdown in CHO. B_ut overall, the fed ones did show improvement, but again just not as great as an improvement as fasted ones.

Will this adaptation carry over to the race for both types of subjects? Of course. Physiological adapation like this just doesn't shut off overnight. Greater resting glycogen in fasted subjects means that the adaptation is working outside of a racing scenario. It had to be. But the fasted ones will always have the *greater relative* advantage, relative to their *own* states before going into the experiment. Remember these adaptative parameters are relative % increases, not absolute increases.

However, one study did show that if you ingest a huge amount of carbs (160g) 45 min before an exercise, then your body will shift to burning more glycogen, and this due to a high insulin level causing the the havoc. So... what a smart racer should do is 1) train to acquire the adaptation, and 2) time his food intake well ahead of a race so that insulin level does not affect high fat oxidation capacity.

I hope this clears things up as far as interpreting the results and how to view the results in the context of a possible training regime, that is if you beleive in the science.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Guod said:


> Disclaimer: This does not work for everyone.
> 
> Also, this will do nothing to help you become efficient as a racer. If you can't ride for several hours without entering Z4, Z5 and blowing up, something is wrong. That means you need fuel.
> 
> The only thing you're advocating is doing something the hard way. If your only goal is to go out and see how long you can ride without eating, then you're doing a good job. But, for training and racing purposes, this will not work.


I did not claim it to work for everyone, did I? But based on the science that I have cited, I was merely presenting is a general plan to acquire an adaptation. It was meant to be a quick and simple reply to Myhui. It was not a consummate, individualized plan for him. Nobody can possibly know what works for him until they present something and allow him time to try, and then evaluate the results. Agree?

And I assume that everyone who is reading this forum knows well enough that any training regime should consist of different zones. No where did I specifically state that a fasted zone 2/3 training is to be seen as a sole tool.

Also you said:


> Also, this will do nothing to help you become efficient as a racer.


What is your definition of efficiency in the context of endurance? Please specify the quantitative parameters that we can use to measure your definition of efficiency. And it would be nice to see some literatures (they don't have to be peer reviewed, but at least quality data) showing the training method you had in mind and how such training method improve a racer's "efficiency" in the context of endurance racing. 

(And I don't consider a 1-hr parking lot crit as an endurance event. Know plenty of crit guys who can drill my ass in a crit, but get their heads handed to them in a 2-hr climbfest at a level approximating 90-92% threshold, including plenty of surges into zone 4 and some 5)


----------



## Guod (Jun 9, 2011)

aclinjury said:


> I did not claim it to work for everyone, did I? But based on the science that I have cited, I was merely presenting is a general plan to acquire an adaptation. It was meant to be a quick and simple reply to Myhui. It was not a consummate, individualized plan for him. Nobody can possibly know what works for him until they present something and allow him time to try, and then evaluate the results. Agree?
> 
> And I assume that everyone who is reading this forum knows well enough that any training regime should consist of different zones. No where did I specifically state that a fasted zone 2/3 training is to be seen as a sole tool.
> 
> ...



2hrs isn't an endurance event either. Not to mention spending that amount of time at 90% means you're riding way above your level. You would have nothing to counter any attacks or make an attack yourself. If you're riding at 90% you should be in a long solo break to make it worth it.

As far as climbing goes, that depends on the rider. Generally speaking, the crit monsters I know aren't suited to much other than an obscene amount of power for an hour or less. This becomes less useful as you start to get into bigger venues where proper racing is involved though.

Just wondering, but what cat and what type of races do you do on a regular basis? And, how much do you weigh? Power to weight ratio is really important in the hills. I get killed by 110lb kids who can fly up the hills, but put a hurt on when things get flat or rolling. I'm not exactly massive either... 160lbs at 5'10".


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Guod said:


> 2hrs isn't an endurance event either. Not to mention spending that amount of time at 90% means you're riding way above your level. You would have nothing to counter any attacks or make an attack yourself. If you're riding at 90% you should be in a long solo break to make it worth it.
> 
> As far as climbing goes, that depends on the rider. Generally speaking, the crit monsters I know aren't suited to much other than an obscene amount of power for an hour or less. This becomes less useful as you start to get into bigger venues where proper racing is involved though.
> 
> Just wondering, but what cat and what type of races do you do on a regular basis? And, how much do you weigh? Power to weight ratio is really important in the hills. I get killed by 110lb kids who can fly up the hills, but put a hurt on when things get flat or rolling. I'm not exactly massive either... 160lbs at 5'10".


There is an approximately 25-mile long mountain climbing route here route here, one of the longest, that I regularly train on. And on one of my training rides, I once put in a continuous 2-hour output averaging 92% of my threshold, with the first hour averaging about 93% threshold, the second hour averaging about 91%. It was one of those days that I felt great, so I kept the hammer down. I did not realize what I had done until I looked at my data post ride. Usually, the 2nd hour is where I tapper off, but on that day, my engine kept ticking, I was in "the zone", both psychologically and physiologicall. Psychology is very important for such a sustain effort. This was on a training ride, on that day. It doesn't mean that I would race like that, and it doesn't mean that I would be able to reproduce such effort like that so easily. Like I say, in addition to physiology, state of mind is equally important. You know the saying, "someday you have it, someday you don't".

As far as racing, I don't race, and to be honest I'm not really interested in mixing it up with the guys, don't look at myself as a cat racer because most cat racers in the US basically means crit racers. There is hardly any road racing here, and forget stage racing. I model myself to be more of an all around guy. I do cycling for fun, all this training and physiology talk, just fun stuff for me because I'm a big science guy. I'm a skinny 5'7" 118 lb. I don't have huge top end power. But compared to most cat5 guys weighing much more than me, I can put generally lay down a bigger average output then them in an hour, and definitely in 2 hr. Then when you factor in the weight, my W/kg ratio is most likely higher than the cat5 guys, and would be in the cat 2/3. But not many cat2,3 is going to be able to hold 4.0 W/kg for 2 hr. I consider my biggest strength is my ability to hold a relatively high near threshold output for a long time. Even on a 3-4 hour ride, I don't usually dip below 80%. My biggest weakness is very low all-out top end power, and very difficult in dealing with power surges that is basically crit racing. Call it different muscle fiber composition makeup, and there is no amount of training I can ever do to be a good crit racer. Races in the US (crit centric, with lots of surges) do not favor guys like me, that is written in stone, so I've sort have become disillusoned with racing. A big guy can just sit in a crit and not do much and then kills everyone if he has a huge sprint. That is not endurance to me, and that is not something I'm nor care to become. That,,, and age and work and other duties in life, the result is a cycling/endurance enthusiast weekend warrior with a strong affinity for science but no real interest in competing at this point in his life.

I don't think most people realize how difficult it can be when you try to eat and refuel while at the same time laying down a huge sustained effort for like 2 hr or maybe longer. I know most guys do not realize this. Why do I say it? I see most guys when they say they "train hard", it usually means doing high intensity intervals, where there is recovery time. Or they'll go hard for 1 hr in a nightly mock crit, and then chill. Or they'll go on a 50 mile group ride with a mixture of low intensity and high intensity, but plenty of stop time to eat here and there. Then they'll take it easy the next day. Yes the high intensity element is hard effort,.. but not the same as training under glycogen deficit. That's how most guys train, and so glycogen sparing is a foreign concept because they almost don't face such condition, even in racing (1hr crit or a TT). But in a stage race, you pretty much will always be running up a glycogen deficit. That is why I'm a strong beleiver in the science that we've been discussing thusfar. But alas, stage racing is nonexistent in the US. But if you're a marathoner, or a tri or ironman guy, you would probably understand the issue of trying to refuel during an event. Glycogen preservation is like having a bigger fuel tank


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

You are definitely a skinny guy at 118 lbs.

I am the same height as you, but at 158 lbs.

That is a huge difference even on seemingly easy situations like accelerating from a standing start to 26mph at the start of a crit.


----------



## Guod (Jun 9, 2011)

Almost every event weekend has both a crit and a road race. Some have a TT as well. It's not "crit-centric", though Europe doesn't do crits as I understand it. The road races aren't short either. I've got an event next weekend that's 90mi for p/1/2 and still 72mi for the 3s. If you think there's no surging in a road race, you're wrong. There are attacks pretty frequently and especially on rollers or climbs if there are any. Several of the nastier road races in the area have hilltop finishes with 10%+ grade climbs.

At 118lbs, you're small. I'd expect you'd do better on a climb than most people. Just so you know though, 4w/kg and up isn't crazy high for a 2 or a 3. It's mid-high for a 3 and a weak 2. I'd like to see that you held 4w/kg for 2hrs, that'd be pretty good for someone who isn't racing or doing specific training. I think that'd be 214w or so.

All that aside though. If all you're doing is aerobic work and the hardest effort you have is just sustaining a long grind, then maybe not eating is ok. But, even in training you will have to make super-threshold efforts that will tap your glycogen stores regardless of how well you metabolize fat. This is even more true in racing, the attacks are seriously hard and if you don't hang on you're done. You need to eat and fuel along the way to keep the tank ready to go.

No one runs a glycogen deficit in stage racing either. If you do, you're shelled off the back at the first surge (which will probably be right at the start or after the neutral section) of the first day. That's why you see pros eating during every race.

If you want a bigger tank, then you go on long base rides. But, you don't starve yourself.

That's the last I'm chiming in on this.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Guod said:


> Almost every event weekend has both a crit and a road race. Some have a TT as well. It's not "crit-centric", though Europe doesn't do crits as I understand it. The road races aren't short either. I've got an event next weekend that's 90mi for p/1/2 and still 72mi for the 3s. If you think there's no surging in a road race, you're wrong. There are attacks pretty frequently and especially on rollers or climbs if there are any. Several of the nastier road races in the area have hilltop finishes with 10%+ grade climbs.
> 
> At 118lbs, you're small. I'd expect you'd do better on a climb than most people. Just so you know though, 4w/kg and up isn't crazy high for a 2 or a 3. It's mid-high for a 3 and a weak 2. I'd like to see that you held 4w/kg for 2hrs, that'd be pretty good for someone who isn't racing or doing specific training. I think that'd be 214w or so.
> 
> ...


4 w/kg is right about there for good 2, great 3, for 1 hr. Not many will hold it for 2. I know it, I ride with some of them on the mountains. I said i was not into racing, true. But i'm an endurance junkie (i do other sport besides cycling), and train (I use the term loosely) 20 hrs/wk. All my training hours have a specific purpose, and I have done extensive research and tweaking into what is the maximal training regime for a body type like me (probably high type 1 fiber). Also I only have been doing the serious cycling stuff in less than 2 years, and only gotten "powermeter" serious in 4-5 months since getting one, which I regret I did not get sooner. As you can see for me to get to where I am in that time frame at an age way past 30, requires a highly tuned program, not some random program based on a collage of bros training tips. Like I said, I'm a science, and numbers guy, and when the science says it's advantageous, then I will explorer that before I'll try out my bros' advice. My ultimate goal is 5 w/kg when I expect to max out my cycling specific endurance capacity in about 3 more years. Be interesting! But in the grand scheme all this is just fun. Life is not just cycling eh, there's also trail running, maybe a marathon here and there, and even weightlifting!

Have a good day


----------



## myhui (Aug 11, 2012)

Alfonsina said:


> How common are eating disorders in male cyclists?


I think it's very common, especially among the professional riders.


----------



## Alfonsina (Aug 26, 2012)

How common are eating disorders in male cyclists?


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Alfonsina said:


> How common are eating disorders in male cyclists?


At 5'7" and 118, obsessed with fasted exercise and burning fat? 118 is tiny. Underweight. No, I don't mean anything as an accusation... But you can't think this post by Alfonsina is outrageous.


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

,,,,,,,,,


----------



## runabike (Jun 18, 2013)

,,,,,,


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

I'd love to see a coach or physiologist chime in here.


----------



## Guod (Jun 9, 2011)

Man, I said my last post would be my last post...

Anyway, I think we need to take whatever aclinjury is saying with a grain of salt. Talk of not being competitive in anything yet holding over 4w/kg for 2hrs and having less body weight for his height than the top climbers in the pro peloton AND spending 20hrs a week training but not training makes me wonder.

Top climbers are around 2lbs per inch of height. 118lbs at 5'7" is 1.76lbs per inch... That's insanely thin. That's thinner than alot of distance runners I know. I'm thinking he actually does need to eat and he'd probably be a stronger rider for doing so.

Once again... Last post on this matter.... Until the next one.


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

I wonder if the OP is even watching this thread anymore.


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> Or to rephrase it, you're basically saying that we should eat a ton of carbs while training because that is the condition we race in.


Wrong, you keep ignoring my points and having a conversation with yourself. The studies you posted did not look at the *performance advantages* of fasted training. They simply looked at fasted vs. fed training physiology. They would need to test their race level efforts in the lab to determine if the was a performance advantage to fasted training. The studies clearly showed no weight advantage and the power output data from two of the studies contradicted each other. My point being that you cannot infer a performance advantage based on those studies because they did not study that.



> Will this adaptation carry over to the race for both types of subjects? Of course. Physiological adapation like this just doesn't shut off overnight. Greater resting glycogen in fasted subjects means that the adaptation is working outside of a racing scenario.


That is a hypothesis that would need to be validated scientifically. Maybe it does and maybe it all goes out the window when the fasted trainers show up "fed" (i.e., non-fasted) on race day.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Guod said:


> Man, I said my last post would be my last post...
> 
> Anyway, I think we need to take whatever aclinjury is saying with a grain of salt. Talk of not being competitive in anything yet holding over 4w/kg for 2hrs and having less body weight for his height than the top climbers in the pro peloton AND spending 20hrs a week training but not training makes me wonder.
> 
> ...


I'm currently about 118.6lbs, give or take.  

Wouldn't being able to hold 4w/kg for 2 hours put FTP somewhere around 5.5-6w/kg?


----------



## Dunbar (Aug 8, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Wouldn't being able to hold 4w/kg for 2 hours put FTP somewhere around 5.5-6w/kg?


I don't think 90% of FTP for 2 hours is all that unheard of. Especially among the endurance crowd. That would put his FTP in the 4.3-4.4 range which is quite good but not enough to dominate in the 3's. Plus at 54kg that puts his FTP at ~230w which as mentioned is not a lot of horsepower to keep up with the heavier rides on the flats.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Dunbar said:


> I don't think 90% of FTP for 2 hours is all that unheard of. Especially among the endurance crowd. That would put his FTP in the 4.3-4.4 range which is quite good but not enough to dominate in the 3's. Plus at 54kg that puts his FTP at ~230w which as mentioned is not a lot of horsepower to keep up with the heavier rides on the flats.


I suppose that's about right. Looking back at old results, my FTP is generally around 4w/kg and I've had to hold ~3.7w/kg for about 2-3 hours.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Dunbar said:


> Wrong, you keep ignoring my points and having a conversation with yourself. The studies you posted did not look at the *performance advantages* of fasted training. They simply looked at fasted vs. fed training physiology. They would need to test their race level efforts in the lab to determine if the was a performance advantage to fasted training. The studies clearly showed no weight advantage and the power output data from two of the studies contradicted each other. My point being that you cannot infer a performance advantage based on those studies because they did not study that.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a hypothesis that would need to be validated scientifically. Maybe it does and maybe it all goes out the window when the fasted trainers show up "fed" (i.e., non-fasted) on race day.


at this point I'm going to stop debating with you on this


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

LVbob said:


> I'd love to see a coach or physiologist chime in here.


I would be most interested too


----------



## skhan007 (May 18, 2012)

LVbob said:


> I wonder if the OP is even watching this thread anymore.


Yes, I am reading, learning, and also being entertained by a lot of what is being said here


----------



## LVbob (Mar 24, 2014)

skhan007 said:


> Yes, I am reading, learning, and also being entertained by a lot of what is being said here


I figured you were out enjoying your new bike. The thread is entertaining though.


----------

