HR zone / workout question

[Allan Olesen]

30 minutes is much too short to worry about burning fat. Your body will use what is easiest to convert to energy (glucose) and that is the glycogen stores in the muscles. Only after that supply dwindles does the body start converting fat into glycogen.

This is simply not true.

At low intensities, the muscles burn fat from the very beginning. You do not have to wait for glycogen depots to be depleted.

This can be easily proven by doing a RER test at increasing intensity.

Also, by working at the lower intensities, you actually train your body's ability to burn fat, so you will start burning more fat and less glycogen, not only at this intensity but also at higher intensities.

[Gammmmo]

30 minutes is much too short to worry about burning fat. Your body will use what is easiest to convert to energy (glucose) and that is the glycogen stores in the muscles. Only after that supply dwindles does the body start converting fat into glycogen.

This is simply not true.

At low intensities, the muscles burn fat from the very beginning. You do not have to wait for glycogen depots to be depleted.

This can be easily proven by doing a RER test at increasing intensity.

Also, by working at the lower intensities, you actually train your body's ability to burn fat, so you will start burning more fat and less glycogen, not only at this intensity but also at higher intensities.

Yes, Allan is correct. But of course the higher the intensity the greater the overall calorie burn.

[bob01]

Gammo that is only true also if the exercise is of the same length!!

Training at a low intensity has many important benefits; if one is trying to maximise ones performance (weight loss perhaps less so but not 100% so )

In most races /TT up to say 5/10k fat/glycogen use is not material. (you ent gonna deplete your glycogen stores in 6-8mins) BUT using fat and not Glycogen enables one to train longer / harder over a cycle. In my day it was often referred to as 'training to train'



Glycogen depletion is one reason why we need to recover!!

The aerobic energy system takes a long time to develop!!

And as said base training has many benefits which are often largely ignored in the pursuit of regular PBS (please don't confuse base training with long (er) distance they aren't necessarily the same thing!!)

Google <AeT Google polarised training.... google periodised training

[Mark E]

This gets to a point that I keep thinking of in these discussions, which is that many people believe that there are bright lines between the different energy systems and that they are either on or off, which is not what happens in reality.

For example, your body is using the anaerobic pathway right now, sitting in your chair and looking at a screen. It's just happening at such a low level that no lactate will accumulate and it is easily cleared.

That's why I'm skeptical about the Maffatone-style theories that suggest mixing low-intensity and high-intensity work on the same day or in the same session will "negate" the effects of either type of training. It may very well be the case that it's best to emphasize one energy system at a time, but there is no such thing as a purely aerobic workout, or a purely anaerobic one.

[bob01]

This gets to a point that I keep thinking of in these discussions, which is that many people believe that there are bright lines between the different energy systems and that they are either on or off, which is not what happens in reality.

For example, your body is using the anaerobic pathway right now, sitting in your chair and looking at a screen. It's just happening at such a low level that no lactate will accumulate and it is easily cleared.

That's why I'm skeptical about the Maffatone-style theories that suggest mixing low-intensity and high-intensity work on the same day or in the same session will "negate" the effects of either type of training. It may very well be the case that it's best to emphasize one energy system at a time, but there is no such thing as a purely aerobic workout, or a purely anaerobic one.

Yes it is a continuum.

I am not too sure re training different zones on the same day is a factor!!!..... but lactate production training can impact negatively on the aerobic base.
When we prepare for a race/TT by increasing the High intensity lactate producing training ( not just referring to the limited specific lactate production training) we have to get the balance correct so that in terms of performance the positive benefits of the high intensity work outways the negative affect that training has on the aerobic system!!! interesting stuff!!!

Specifically your questioning the Marratone point .... might one not do a long warm up prior to the high intensity work

[kini62]

30 minutes is much too short to worry about burning fat. Your body will use what is easiest to convert to energy (glucose) and that is the glycogen stores in the muscles. Only after that supply dwindles does the body start converting fat into glycogen.

This is simply not true.

At low intensities, the muscles burn fat from the very beginning. You do not have to wait for glycogen depots to be depleted.

This can be easily proven by doing a RER test at increasing intensity.

Also, by working at the lower intensities, you actually train your body's ability to burn fat, so you will start burning more fat and less glycogen, not only at this intensity but also at higher intensities.

I don't believe it. The body will do what is most efficient. It's most efficient to use the easily processed glycogen than to go through the process of converting fat to glycogen from the onset. I would like to see medically approved, published papers (more than one study) that supports your hypothesis.

At this point I respectfully call BS on "you can train your body to burn fat before glycogen".

[Allan Olesen]

Sorry, but this is so well-known, basic stuff that I think you should do yourself a favour and read up a bit.

At low intensities, the body will primarily burn fat. When you increase the intensity, and fat combustion cannot keep up, glycogen combustion will gradually take over.

The point where you have a 50/50 share of fat and glycogen combustion is sometimes referred to as the Aerobic Threshold (not to be confused by the Aneaerobic Threshold). This can be found by testing your exhaled air at different workout intensities.

Glycogen combustion will use 6 molecules of O2 to produce 6 molecules of CO2, leading to a 1:1 ratio between produced CO2 and consumed O2. Fat combustion will use 23 molecules of O2 to produce 16 molecules of CO2, leading to a 0.7:1 ratio between produced CO2 and consumed O2. So by measuring this ratio, also called RER, the ratio between fat combustion and glycogen combustion can be found.

[Mark E]

Emphasizing fat-burning is great for long duration efforts, but I don't see how it's of much benefit to traditional rowing distances like 5K and 2K.

"Research has shown that training in the fat-burning zone does improve fat-burning capacity. However, it only improves fat-burning capacity within the fat-burning zone itself—that is, at lower exercise intensities. No matter how fit they are or in what manner they’ve trained, all runners rely on carbohydrate when racing at intensities that are near or above the lactate threshold. Indeed, despite being well adapted for fat burning, elite male marathon runners oxidize carbohydrate almost exclusively during competition. Only slower marathon runners (3:30-plus) and ultramarathon runners are likely to benefit from emphasizing training in their fat-burning zone."

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/can- ... g-machine/

[bob01]

No!
Ok whilst racing you are correct. But when training not at all
* there are physiological benefits from training at the lower end of the continuum. These include stroke volume... What I refer to as capiorization.. Getting blood and oxygen and the nutrients therein to the muscle fibers.. Aerobic enzymes... Etc
Anaerobic training can have a negative effect on above..

* when one trains glycogen is depleted only partially replaced before the next session.. This is obviously cumulative. Using more fat will reduce this glycogen deficiency

[Gammmmo]

At this point I respectfully call BS on "you can train your body to burn fat before glycogen".

Uh........ketosis?

P.S. Are you trolling?

[G-dub]

Down the rabbit hole again. Just when I think I’ve got it, it gets confusing again. My intuition agrees with Mark - Maffetone’s idea that you can’t train different systems on same day makes no sense to me. If so, how do top level endurance athletes train multiple times per day at different intensities (im sure I’m missing something here). I’ve always assumed that when people say that anaerobic or non aerobic training negatively affects aerobic training it had to do with reducing the time / volume of training in the aerobic zone due to increasing the amount of time / volume in anaerobic zones (or higher intensity zones) which would then detrain the aerobic system rather than elevate it. That and recovery makes maintaining or increasing volume in aerobic zone hard to accomplish. Simple me!

[hjs]

At this point I respectfully call BS on "you can train your body to burn fat before glycogen".

Uh........ketosis?

P.S. Are you trolling?

Even so, if we start using our fast muscle fibers those need glycogen nomatter what.
And its training the body to use more fat, the body likes to use fat, its the other way around, by eating lots of carbs you force the body to use carbs.

I often asked low carb advocates to name one top athlete in a performance sport that uses the anaerobic pathway. Thusfar never got 1 example, apart from all kind of non sport sports.
Only extreme endurance or very short low volume sports don,t need carbs.

[hjs]

Down the rabbit hole again. Just when I think I’ve got it, it gets confusing again. My intuition agrees with Mark - Maffetone’s idea that you can’t train different systems on same day makes no sense to me. If so, how do top level endurance athletes train multiple times per day at different intensities (im sure I’m missing something here). I’ve always assumed that when people say that anaerobic or non aerobic training negatively affects aerobic training it had to do with reducing the time / volume of training in the aerobic zone due to increasing the amount of time / volume in anaerobic zones (or higher intensity zones) which would then detrain the aerobic system rather than elevate it. That and recovery makes maintaining or increasing volume in aerobic zone hard to accomplish. Simple me!

Glenn, I think the problem is that fully training our aerobic system needs a high volume, which almost nobody can or is willing to do. Don,t think recovery is key point, if so you go to fast. Look at cyclist or crosscountrt skiers who do tons if volume.

For rowing, a point is, low rate work is mostly done aimed at 2k pace. If you would let that go and use a softer stroke it would be a lot easier.

[G-dub]

Minor clarification: when I was referring to recovery it was in the context of higher intensity training. I agree that the low intensity shouldn’t require recovery.

And Henry - you are right, there would be no assessment of me that didn’t say I needed more aerobic development. But there is only so much time in the day and I’ve got other things I like to do! So be it I suppose. We can only do what we can and want to do!

[hjs]

Minor clarification: when I was referring to recovery it was in the context of higher intensity training. I agree that the low intensity shouldn’t require recovery.

And Henry - you are right, there would be no assessment of me that didn’t say I needed more aerobic development. But there is only so much time in the day and I’ve got other things I like to do! So be it I suppose. We can only do what we can and want to do!

Was more talking in general. Almost every rower, 2k and above could be better aerobicly. For hobby ergers and also for older athletes thats often way to much to ask for.
I myself more and more have trouble with intensity. Get injured more easily much easier.