-
The point is, if you have 3-4hrs of ride time, then doing that time harder because you can, because you're fueling it, means you'll burn more calories than if you did 3-4 hours of unfueled riding. Exactly what the differences would be depend on the individual and state of training.
There's a whole heap of other stuff like - recovery, muscle damage and the ability to do back to back training days at the same intensities, problems with long-term energy imbalance like RED-S, properly fueled rides are less likely to result in URT infections. Riding fasted now and then has benefits but I wouldn't create a whole program around long fasted rides.Wiggo just nailed a fuck load of catabolic asthma meds. Insta weight loss.
hippy-
Understand.
And to be clear. I am only riding low intensity distance non fueled passes on the weekend -mid week trying to get higher intensity (spinning bullshit) interval passes. I am rehabbing a slipped disc now - so trying something new to build up core so I dont fuck myself again and have to be off the bike for extended periods.
That and I dont have asthma like wiggo so looking for other marginal gains
elllguapo
even with all this science - training harder is still training harder ...
My hypothesis is - if I can train 3-4 hours in zone 2 without eating, the resulting calorie deficit is greater than it would be if I did a one and a half hour high int pass fuelled with carbs. Works for me in the winter so my lsd passes give me greater cal deficit than fueled high int passes (or even better non fueled high int passes).
I dont know - read some bullshit about how Wiggo lost weight when he went from track to road and I bought it straight out... you know distance passes after an espresso = marginal gains