Radiohead
Outstanding album. My daughter loves it too.
My favourite grooving track is Reckoner. If you dig it, check this out. Fantastic! The band's site is rather interesting, not least the bloggage. Thoughtful.
What's your album of the week? Do you have a favourite you return to while churning away inside?
12 comments:
Hey Matty,
The new Morrissey is pretty good for the trainer - and doing dishes for that matter. Any quick suggestions for interval sets you've been using lately? I need to change it up. Chris Carmichael makes me want to stick a fork in my eye...
Mmm, great suggestion Brad, I'll check that out.
I've not started intervals yet, just focusing on keeping the heart rate down so I can burn some fat. I'll integrate a set of intervals this week, and think about adding one each week for a max of three out of six days on the bike. In feb I'll mix it up more and start to focus on power, which will be the main focus in March (inside at least). There is a cyclingnews article on lunchtime workouts that might interest you. I was personally planning on trying some of Carmichael's sets. This is mt first winter of really focusing on training inside, so I'm definitely on the learning curve.
Born to Run -- the best 40 minutes in pop music. Headphones are best for picking up the orchestral details and of course the wrenching lyrics. The emotions on that record get me every time even after about a million listens...
As for trainer workouts -- crank it up to just below your threshold for as long as you can -- you'll burn more of everything (including fat.)
That's quite a bit more effort than what is traditionally considered the 'fat burning zone,' right Rob? Like zone 1 or 2 versus 3? I'd like to ride at this intensity personally, as its easier on my but and more fun. At only 1-2 hours on the bike at a time, is this the way to go?
anything by michael bolton.
what can I say, I like the guy.
I cant help it - I am a michael bolton fan.
The whole concept of a "fat burning zone" is a bit of a myth. Yes, at low intensities you burn mostly fat and at higher intensities you burn carbs as well as fats.
An easy ride might burn 400 calories in an hour with 80% coming from fat. A hard ride might burn 750 calories with 50% coming from fat. 50% of 750 is more than 80% of 400.
So relative to the number of calories burned the easy ride burned a higher proportion of fat. But the harder ride burned way more overall calories and the amount of fat burned ended up being higher despite the lower percentage. Plus the harder ride burned a bunch of carbs. Calories are calories.
Of course you don't want to hammer all time but I'm not sure that easy 1hr spins on the trainer do much good for someone with an already high level of base fitness. In the summer they would be called "recovery rides" and would be the first thing to go from the training plan when time got tight as their valuable is questionable.
Turn up the intensity to somewhere around "tempo" for at least part of the trainer sessions. I find skate skiing a fantastic "tempo" workout. Not exactly bike-specific but it keeps me sane.
Thanks for the elaboration Rob. Intuitively, what you are arguing feels right. I'm going to follow your advice. It seems long steady miles are good for teaching/reminding your body how to efficiently use fat as fuel. I read a story about a pro-tour racer who had to 'reset' his body after years of high intensity training and racing - he was constantly on the brink of bonking as he was not burning fat as fuel (so went the story). He had to do a bunch of long steady base miles to get over the problem. My intuition tells me that I already burn fat as fuel pretty well, which is why I think your advice will serve me well. The more I think about it, I recall how the goal of an endurance athlete is always to be able to burn more fat at higher intensities. Triathletes, for example, need to be able to burn fat as their primary fuel source over the duration of their races. And I figure they are generally performing at tempo pace over the course of their races. Then there's burning lactic acid as fuel, which apparently works rather well. It just hurts. Different ball of wax.
LSD used to be Long Slow Distance now it's often referred to as Long STEADY Distance... Riding slow and easy definitely has it's place but if endurance gains are to be made a good part of base training has to be steady. Not time trialling every day but not dogging it either.
Matt I think you hit the nail with this: "the goal of an endurance athlete is always to be able to burn more fat at higher intensities".
IMHO, you and Rob both have valid points. I am a big believer in always incorporating some intensity at pretty much all times of the year, however I believe also in the point about training your body to burn fat as fuel and the pro who had to "re-calibrate".
When I first started racing I came from a hockey background and could hammer hills and put out good intensity...but I discovered that my base was really poor. This is clearly not the case for any of us now....but LSD is beneficial to training your body to burn fat as fuel as opposed to glycogen. And Rob is absolutely right "steady" not necessarily "slow". For me I think just under threshold is too high for this, (unless you are talking aerobic threshold not anerobic threshold. Personally I would do the LSD at around aerobic threshold - the upper end of base pace.
Good stuff. Of course it must be different for everyone. I have found focussing on fat burning in the last couple of years has helped me quite a bit. I am not at the same level as yourselves - I would expect I could reap greater benefits than Matt from fat burning. Commuting by fixie has done this for me. I am forced to cruise at a certain speed. There's no option to move up a gear to greater intensity. Roadie and MTB rides then offer the alternative, high intensity use of fat and carbs.
Got three hours? Greg tipped me off to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBnOELnyu-w
It can be summed up in a word.
Post a Comment