Detox and Exercise

[Cois]

Maybe this can help as well:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/humanbody/truthaboutfood/young/detox.shtml

 

Does Detox work?

 

Despite the high profile of detox diets, very little research exists to prove whether it has any measurable value. In this study, we put the diet to the test, finding out if following a strict detox plan can really reduce the body’s toxic load and enhance the efficiency of our body’s innate systems.

 

"relying on a detox isn’t the solution"

 

We took ten party animals to a country cottage retreat for ten days to see if a detox diet could recharge their internal batteries. The group was split into two and half the girls were put on a balanced diet, including red meat, alcohol, coffee and tea, pasta, bread, chocolate and crisps (in moderation), with the remainder following a strict vice-free diet.

 

Can a short, sharp shock really change the levels of toxicity in your body in just a week?

 

After testing the kidney and liver functions and measuring the antioxidant and aluminium levels in their blood we found there were no differences between the groups.

 

Which just goes to show, in a binge and purge culture relying on a detox isn’t the solution. Your body has its own way of regulating toxins and a week of suffering won’t change that so you are better off sticking to a balanced diet all the time.

 

There is a few links that gives great info on diet and all that stuff. If you can get your hands on this series get it. It will change you and your diet...

[Christopher Brunsdon]

@Cois: thanks, that was what I was refering to. That series, The Truth About Food, was amazing and changed my whole perception of food in a good way.

[Johan Bornman]

Actually, the weight loss will come with slow cycling when you heart rate is between 50-60% as this is known as your fat burning zone. When you exercise up at 70-80% you are in your carbohydrate burning zone as fat cannot be pulled fast enough fromm your body and hence only carbs (glycogen) are used. To loose weight you need to ride slower, but to stay on the bike still need a certain amount of food to go into your system or else you will bonk most often than not.

 

This is a common myth. When you exercise harder, you consume more fat and glycogen than at a less intense level. It is just that the ratio of glycogen vs fat increases in favour of glycogen as the intensity increases, but overall, the harder you work the more you burn of both.

 

The harder you work, the more you burn.

 

 

Edit: The other myths were dealt with by Cois nd Cbrunson.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Johan Bornman

[Zeps]

 

The harder you work, the more you burn.

 

I have now read in a few different places that if you ride hard for say 1 hour you will burn more calories (and it matters not from whence they come ) and therefore lose more weight than if you ride 'easier' for 1 hour .... seems this is now becoming the 'accepted' norm?

[Johan Bornman]

I have now read in a few different places that if you ride hard for say 1 hour you will burn more calories (and it matters not from whence they come ) and therefore lose more weight than if you ride 'easier' for 1 hour .... seems this is now becoming the 'accepted' norm?

 

That is a given. The more work done, the more energy required.

 

 

The issue is the source of that energy (fat or glycogen) and their ratios. The common myth is that in some magical zone you burn predominantly fat and therefore it is more beneficial to go slow than faster.

 

This is a fallacy. The fact that the ratio of fat to glycogen changes somewhat the faster you go, doesn't mean that it is better for calorie consumption to slack off.

 

The faster you go, the more (fat and glycogen) you burn.

[The_Break]

That is a given. The more work done, the more energy required.

 

 

The issue is the source of that energy (fat or glycogen) and their ratios. The common myth is that in some magical zone you burn predominantly fat and therefore it is more beneficial to go slow than faster.

 

This is a fallacy. The fact that the ratio of fat to glycogen changes somewhat the faster you go, doesn't mean that it is better for calorie consumption to slack off.

 

The faster you go, the more (fat and glycogen) you burn.

 

Johan you get me wrong. Riding in the "hard" zone is only sustainable for "shorter" periods of time. You cannot ride in your high glycogen burning zone for more than 60-90minutes before you likely to bonk or fatigue. Riding in your lower heart rate fat burning zone allows you to ride for longer and thus burn more fat and loose more weight. Riding in the fat burning zone also has additional benefits to weight loss as it is at these lower intensities (using classed as base zone) that you increase the number of mitochondria in your cells. It is these cells that actually are responsible for transforming molecules into energy and other molecules. The more of these you have the fitter you become and the longer you can go and also has to do with your metabolism increasing.

 

The point in question here is not calorie consumption, it is fat loss if I understand it. If she simply rides hard all the time she will burn glycogen or whatever is in her stomach. After the ride she will simply refuel that. Burnt lots of calories, but no fat loss. If she rides in the fat burning zone, then she targets the fat and thus looses the weight. So no, it is not fallacy. There is sufficient literature that backs this up from countless studies done for decades.

[The_Break]

I have now read in a few different places that if you ride hard for say 1 hour you will burn more calories (and it matters not from whence they come ) and therefore lose more weight than if you ride 'easier' for 1 hour .... seems this is now becoming the 'accepted' norm?

 

I disagree with this. You will burn off your muscle glycogen in that hour and will simply replace it when you eat again. So you may use a load of energy, but almost none of this will be fat which leads to actual weight loss.

 

Got read up on your metabolic zones and where fats and carbs are metabolized. Fat cannot be matebolised quickly enough and the body is forced to use muscle glycogen during hard exercise.

['Dale]

you've got toxins, and u need to detox, but nothing in specific? u see the dilemma? i mean, how do u choose a correct course of action if u dont know what you targetting? Coffee and by extension chocolate, are never toxins. Carry on with those

I love ma choccies.

Good to hear that it is not toxin.

 

Mads, how are you doing now?

Hopefully, getting your superpowers back...

[Mads]

I love ma choccies.

Good to hear that it is not toxin.

 

Mads, how are you doing now?

Hopefully, getting your superpowers back...

 

 

Hello Air Bender. Thanks for asking. I had a few "balanced" meals - packed with the carbs and I think Christmas lunch also helped.

 

Went for a ride(40km) yesterday - medium paced - and flat and it went well. I felt good. So I am recovering. Thank you. Going to put it up a knot today.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Mads

[Mads]

I disagree with this. You will burn off your muscle glycogen in that hour and will simply replace it when you eat again. So you may use a load of energy, but almost none of this will be fat which leads to actual weight loss.

 

Got read up on your metabolic zones and where fats and carbs are metabolized. Fat cannot be metabolized quickly enough and the body is forced to use muscle glycogen during hard exercise.

 

I am not as knowledgeable as others on the Hub, but as The Break stated earlier in this tread - I also had learn some lessons with the mistakes I have made. This is my personal experience :

 

I started to want to loose weight since April this year.

 

Got a MTB route 5 minutes from my house which is +- 20km. It has an almost 500m ascent and I rode it almost daily ( 3 - 4 times a week) and flatter routes on weekends. Needless to say at a HR that was sometimes more that 95% - especially in the beginning months

 

First of all I think I need to say, my biggest competition is myself. And always pushing myself to be faster and going harder. Well.... when I started I completed that route in 1h40 and I eventually could do that route in 1h. Which means I got better - BUT NOT THINNER. I actually gained weight.

 

So.......

 

about two months ago I joined a group - which forced me to ride slower and steadier and I started to ride at a 50-60% HR and for the first time in 8 months I actually started to loose weight.

 

Now before you all crucify me. I do realize there is a lot of variables in this equation.....

 

But according to my personal experience, The Break is right: the lower HR zone will make one loose more weight It is definitely not only about the burning of calories alone.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Mads

[Zeps]

I disagree with this. You will burn off your muscle glycogen in that hour and will simply replace it when you eat again. So you may use a load of energy, but almost none of this will be fat which leads to actual weight loss.

 

Got read up on your metabolic zones and where fats and carbs are metabolized. Fat cannot be matebolised quickly enough and the body is forced to use muscle glycogen during hard exercise.

 

OK