The cycling was deliberately performed at a relatively easy intensity (about 55 percent of each person’s predetermined aerobic capacity).
Body recomposition isn't a game of calories; it's a game of hormones. It's well documented that high intensity effort is required to increase levels of human growth hormone, which leads to fat loss ("afterburn", as the article calls it).
GH did not increase significantly from preexercise baseline during low intensity exercise
[...]
A minimum duration of 10 min, high intensity exercise consistently increased circulating GH in adult males.
So HGH is released relative to a workout's intensity, not its duration. You'd be better off with 20 minutes of high intensity workout versus 3 hours putzing around on a stationary bike.
A hormone-centric mindset will get better results with diet, too. Your hormonal response to some piece of food is much more important than its caloric count. This may be slightly conspiratorial, but I think the food industry fights against this viewpoint. They want you to think you can still lose weight if you eat their shitty 100-calorie snack packs full of crappy corn syrup and whatever because, hey, it's 100 calories, right? Woe betide the food industry if people actually start caring what they're eating instead of just how much...
"You'd be better off with 20 minutes of high intensity workout versus 3 hours putzing around on a stationary bike."
You actually do burn a lot of fat just cruising at 155bpm or whatever, it's just that it takes about 90 min for your body to exhaust the energy supply in your liver. At this point your percentage of energy coming from fat increasing, which is necessary not only to lose weight but also to get the full benefits of cardio training. That's why elite athletes always go for at least 90min when they do cardio.
Note though that you want to eat something every 45min or so and also drink something with electrolytes or else you risk 'overtraining', which doesn't actually come from training too much but rather from chronic glycogen depletion.
The cycling was deliberately performed at a relatively easy intensity (about 55 percent of each person’s predetermined aerobic capacity).
Body recomposition isn't a game of calories; it's a game of hormones. It's well documented that high intensity effort is required to increase levels of human growth hormone, which leads to fat loss ("afterburn", as the article calls it).
This is easily found in existing medical research. Quick Google turns up this, but there are many others: http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/75/1/157
GH did not increase significantly from preexercise baseline during low intensity exercise
[...]
A minimum duration of 10 min, high intensity exercise consistently increased circulating GH in adult males.
So HGH is released relative to a workout's intensity, not its duration. You'd be better off with 20 minutes of high intensity workout versus 3 hours putzing around on a stationary bike.
A hormone-centric mindset will get better results with diet, too. Your hormonal response to some piece of food is much more important than its caloric count. This may be slightly conspiratorial, but I think the food industry fights against this viewpoint. They want you to think you can still lose weight if you eat their shitty 100-calorie snack packs full of crappy corn syrup and whatever because, hey, it's 100 calories, right? Woe betide the food industry if people actually start caring what they're eating instead of just how much...