I said this in another post somewhere, I like to say that I defy the laws of thermodynamics. I do not obey the law of conservation of energy, I feel like I burn more than I take in, and still manage to gain weight. This winter I tracked every calorie I ate and that helped some, but I should do that again now that I've increased my activity and see how the equation balances out.

I am still confused about the "fat burning" vs. aerobic exercise. You have the camp that says you must exercise longer at lower intensity to burn fat. Then the other camp that says you should exercise at a higher intensity to burn more calories overall. Anyone have any scientific evidence to support either of these theories?

I've never had my VO2 max measured, but what Eden was saying kind of makes sense to me. Last year (my first year riding, but I'd been doing other exercise for years) I was starving all of the time and gaining weight. I know I was eating too much to compensate for the calories burned in cycling, but I was ravenous. This year I am not so hungry. My goal was to eat on long rides and some recovery food after, but otherwise to keep my meals pretty much the same. I've been able to do that without feeling like I'm starving (so far, knock on wood). I know I've made some improvement in my overall fitness, I believe I've increased my lactic acid threshold since I can go much harder for longer without getting leg cramps. So perhaps my body is burning more stored fats than carbs now . . . I'm very sloooooowly dropping a couple of pounds, as in 2 lb in the last month. That corresponds to an increase from about 3 or 4 hours a week of various exercises to about 8 or 9 hours (and 3 of those are pretty high intensity). I'd be so happy if I could loose 8 more lb by the end of the summer, but I feel like I'd have to train for 20 hours a week and only eat 500 calories a day to make that happen.