Losing Weight post No 5334 (sorry)

jimmyla · May 2007

My rule is that by using more calories than you eat you lose weight.

Recently I've lost 6kg from 78kg down to 72kg (I'm 5'8"). But I've spent the last month at about 72kg and it's not shifting

I've been measured for fat and apparently my lean weight is 60kg.

I eat a balanced diet with lots of fruit and carbohydrates. BUT do have the occasional tipple (maybe once or twice a week).

Even with the occasional tipple I follow my rule above.

For instance at the weekend my polar hrm (which I'm starting to doubt) says I expended 5000 calories during exercise at the weekend.

Riding time was 7 hours so its not too unreasonable.

On top of this I reckon I use 1900 calories per day.

So total over the weekend - 8800 calories used

Saturday morning weight - 71.9kg
Monday Morning weight - 72.3kg

Weight gained = 400grams (400x9= 3600 cal)

Total calories I must have eaten over the weekend - 12400!

But I've worked out that on Saturday I ate/drank ~ 3000 calories

and on Sunday I ate/drank ~ 4500 calories

12400 calories used - 7500 calories eaten = 4900 calories not accounted for.

Ok you could say that I've messed up in my food diary but 4900 calories is an awful lot of food to miss.

What is happening?

meenaghman · May 2007

Weighing yourself over consecutive days or nearly con. days will show too much deviation from other aspects such as hydration levels and food intake and outlet.
secondly are you using a bathroom scales ? not necessarily the most accurate weight measure.
I'd stick to max 1 weighing a week.
Finally weight but rather fat percentages as you point out are a better standard to use. Again though, dont get hung up about it.. most of the fat techniques have a few percentage errors in them also unless you're going to get dunked in water and use displacement.
Finally Calorie usage on HRM etc is geared for "an average person". no idea what polar consider an average. Again these are notoriously way off. Depends what speed you did your ride at and what level of fitness you currently have, and indeed hills etc.. but you'll no doubt agree that someone riding for 15mph for an hr will burn less calories than someone riding 20mph for an hr (all other things being equal).
If you really want to get an idea try the following
http://www.kreuzotter.de/english/espeed.htm
it will prob give a value closer to the mark.

jimmyla · May 2007

Thanks. I take most of your points on board but on my HRM the OwnCal calculation apparently takes into account VO2max, HRmax and exercise heart rate when working out calorie expenditure. Which should (you'd think) be pretty accurate whatever I was riding.

That said somethings not adding up somewhere and the hrm seems the most likely suspect.

It's amazing how quickly a cat's lives disappear if you have a hammer.

domtyler · May 2007

The HRM uses your heart rate plus age, height, weight etc. to calculate energy expenditure which should be far more accurate than any chart. I normally burn around 800 per hour cycling hard which makes it about the same as you.

Wouldn't bother weighing yourself so often either, what for exactly? Are you entering some kind of competition? Sounds like you are already reasonably lean. Your body is around 65% water so will fluctuate throughout the week and even day, so stick to weighing yourself once a week at the most and always at the same time, naked, first thing in the morning after you have 'done your business'.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Porridge not Petrol
________
THYROID DISORDERS FORUMS

DaveyL · May 2007

I wouldn't worry too much about that 400 g fluctuation - it will undoubtedly be due to hydration levels. Best thing is to weigh yourself once or twice a week (at the most) and at the same time of day. I have scales which measure body fat% and water% and it's interesting to see just how much hydration levels change. The readings also seem to be skewed when you are a bit dehydrated. For example, I can weigh myself before and after an hour on the gym bike, and when I weigh myself after, I am a kilo lighter. OK, this is due to water loss. But the fat% will be higher, implying my body fat has increased, and by quite a bit. So I always stick to weighing myself when well-hydrated. It also means you're not cheating to find the lowest weight by waiting until you're dehydrated!

In terms of starting to shift weight again, I can recommend a copy of Anita Bean's sports nutrition book. It will help with analysing the composition of your calories, fat vs protein vs carb, and just what levels of each you should be aiming for. Of course, upping the mileage and/or intensity will help too...

[edited for spelling...]

BeaconRuth · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domtyler
Wouldn't bother weighing yourself so often either, what for exactly? Are you entering some kind of competition? Sounds like you are already reasonably lean. Your body is around 65% water so will fluctuate throughout the week and even day, so stick to weighing yourself once a week at the most and always at the same time, naked, first thing in the morning after you have 'done your business'.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">I completely understand that body weight fluctuates daily, but I've never understood why only weighing yourself once a week is a solution to finding a better method of mesuring your weight. If there is a variation between daily readings then there is also a variation between weekly readings. Why is a reading taken once a week inherently not affected by the same fluctuation?

Surely the best solution is to weigh daily and take an average?

DaveyL · May 2007

Good point - though one may not want to get into the habit of weighing oneself daily - need to make sure you can remain "emotionally detached" from occasional upsetting results!

This year I've gone from 119 kg to 108 kg so far (damn, I should have entered the ex-XXL challenge!), and to be honest have actually weighed myself fairly regularly - often 3 times a week (sometimes 4). An Excel graph makes interesting reading - there are often small upward jumps but the trend is, of course, downward, so as long as you stay focussed on the long-term goal, small fluctuations should not put you off. Most short-term weight changes will undoubtedly be due to hydration level - losing fat is a relatively slow process and so is gaining fat, unless you are eating absolute mountains of food, which you would see clearly if you're keeping any sort of food diary.

eh · May 2007

Weighing yourself after exercise is a damn good way of working out how much water you have lost and hence, gives you an idea of how much you should be taking on board to re-hydrate.

If you really want to find out if you have lost weight then you should take regular readings at the same time of day and with your best guess at constant hydration. Then look for a trend over say a month or longer rather than spurious changes daily.

dave5ncp · May 2007

It's the tipple, as you well know.

 please pretend there's a horizontal line here. I couldnt work out how to put one in.
You stir my natural emotions

domtyler · May 2007

Hi Ruth,

The problem is that people tend to become overly obsessed with weight and start weighing themselves 3 or 4 times a day which is totally illogical. Once a week is too much imo, once per month is ample. As DaveyL points out above, fat loss and gain happens over a long period of time so frequent weighing is pointless.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Porridge not Petrol
________
Lupus advice

hevipedal · May 2007

Just weigh your self once a week. Always at the same time, preferably first thing in the morning just after using the toilet. You should always then have more or less the same hydrated state etc so it's an accurate weight and not distorted by being very hydrated at one weigh-in and dehydrated at the next.

 Hevipedal 
Phrase of the week - I've got a bike. You can ride it if you like.
It's got a basket, a bell that rings and
Things to make it look good.
I'd give it to you if I could, but I borrowed it.
 
51yrs old and Proud of it - Made it to 87kg 2 more to go for the target.
Pedal to Paris Sept 2007

BeaconRuth · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by domtyler

Hi Ruth,

The problem is that people tend to become overly obsessed with weight and start weighing themselves 3 or 4 times a day which is totally illogical. Once a week is too much imo, once per month is ample. As DaveyL points out above, fat loss and gain happens over a long period of time so frequent weighing is pointless.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> I'm sorry, I have to disagree that weighing daily is pointless - it's certainly not necessary - but it provides a far better way of monitoring a trend than a single weighing weekly or monthly. Precisely because of (seemingly) random variations, one single measurement will never be a 'reliable' reading, so why should you believe that your single once-a-month reading is not subject to a random fluctuation any more than each daily reading?

I understand that people become over-obsessed wth their weight and it's highly ill-advised to look for weight loss on a daily (or possibly even weekly) basis, but a perfectly sensible way of keeping an eye on your weight is to weigh daily, record your weight and calculate some kind of rolling average.

I recorded my weight 6 times in Week 1 and 6 times in Week 8 of this year. My average weight for the 6 readings fell from Week 1 to Week 8 by 1.7kg. However, if I had happened to only weigh on the Friday of Week 1 and the Sunday of Week 8, I would have concluded that my weight had fallen by just 0.7kg.

I cannot understand why you suggest that I would have been better to have weighed just twice and come up with 0.7kg as my change in weight. Statistically, scientifically, mathematically it's nonsense - though I accept that for people with a weight problem who face psychological challenges in losing weight it might be wise to play-down the issue of measurement.

Unknown · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by BeaconRuth
quote]
Statistically, scientifically, mathematically it's nonsense -
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Don't you just love when someone highlights a possible flaw in an argument [:D]

richa · May 2007

I think you are eating too much. 7500 calories over the weekend seems like a lot to me for someone trying to lose weight.

I know you burnt loads with your 7 hrs of cycling. But that ideally would have been done at a fat burning pace meaning that you don't need to replace the cals on a like-for like basis.

My tupence worth.

Rich
Etape2007.Blogspot.Com

jimmyla · May 2007

Thanks for your posts.

I take your points about fluctuating bodyweight during the day due to hydration. Unfortunately the weight seems to have stayed on - so still confused.

I also take the point about eating too much that weekend but definately not about dropping to fat burning pace!

It's amazing how quickly a cat's lives disappear if you have a hammer.

Jacomus-rides-Gen · May 2007

Have you thought why you are trying to lose weight[/]? Surely you are trying to lose fat, and to do it you need to exercise, which builds muscle, which weighs more than fat.

Do you want to lose weight, as body mass, or as fat?

A point on the frequency of weighing, whatever you do be careful. Try and weight yourself at the same time of day and on a shedule and not to deviate from it, weight issues are compulsive and can potentially sneak up on you.

_________________________
Quote: "25mph is pretty fast when you aren't wearing a car..."

fatbee · May 2007

"My rule is that by using more calories than you eat you lose weight."

I'm afraid it's your rule that's the problem. Things really aren't that simple, despite what the majority of people on this board believe. For instance, simple calorie restriction will (even if it actually works in the longer term,) cause loss of muscle tissue as well as that of unwanted body fat.

Add to that a whole host of other variables that you can't enter into your Polar HRM, and it soon becomes clear that unless it's working, calorie counting in such an over-precise and pseudo-scientific fashion is, frankly, a mug's game and pretty much bound to fail sooner or later.

As Jacomus nearly said, it doesn't matter how much you "weigh", it matters how fat you are (or aren't.)

You're riding for seven hours for goodness sake - that's a lot of exercise (and well done and respect for it BTW.) That really should be comfortably enough for you to have the healthy body-composition you want, and the reason that it (apparently) isn't (IMO) is not calories but carbohydrates.

DaveyL · May 2007

I think he'd have had trouble riding for 7 hours without them...

Mike Willcox1 · May 2007

The body has an excellent way of optimising calorie intake. It's called hunger. Overeating (or self-indulgence) puts on weight. The rest is academic.

jimmyla · May 2007

Yep sorry. The reason for the weight loss is to improve my racing.

I found the 6kg loss was a massive boost to speed, so I'm trying to keep it up.

Maybe I've become a bit too focused on weight loss and now I should just concentrate on keeping what I've got.

.....and keep eating lots of carbohydrates

It's amazing how quickly a cat's lives disappear if you have a hammer.

fatbee · May 2007

"The body has an excellent way of optimising calorie intake. It's called hunger. Overeating (or self-indulgence) puts on weight. The rest is academic."

Mike, are you now, or have you ever been, significantly overwight? Judging by the dismisive, smug and self-satisfied tone of your post I very much doubt it.

So good for you.

Literally.

Only, what a dismal view of humanity you must have. The entire obesity crisis throughout the western world and the tens and tens of millions of people suffering, dying prematurely (and costing you an awful lot of tax BTW,) is just down to self-indulgence is it?

Well thank the good Lord for Mike Willcox and his masterful analysis.

If only the thousands upon thousands of health professionals currently trying to deal with this problem were blessed with your insight, then I feel sure that they'd have solved it by now. Still, it'll all be alright now that you've spoken I should think.

Any chance you could ensure world peace and harmony and find a cure for cancer while you're at it?

Thanks in advance.

sloboy · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by fatbee

The entire obesity crisis throughout the western world and the tens and tens of millions of people suffering, dying prematurely (and costing you an awful lot of tax BTW,) is just down to self-indulgence is it?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well, maybe self indulgence may be an over simplification but it's not that far off. For most people, if they are at the "wrong" weight it's because they've consumed inappropriately. "Wrong" amounts or the "wrong" choices. Actually, this probably works for weights which might be considered too low as much as those too high.

It may well be that the actual detailed mechanisms involved are quite complicated, but there's a general physical principle that's not rocket science that for the majority of people deals pretty well with gross weight issues. No doubt it may get a bit trickier when chasing small weight changes, but I don't suppose that bit constitutes an obesity crisis.

SteveR_100Milers · May 2007

You dont see much obesity in most parts of Africa. Not much in Japan/Korea where the diet is much lower is saturated fats. Fat people are fat because they over eat irrespective of whether its deliberate or a clinical problem. I was one because I did aswell, exercising hard and eating more sensibly is ONE way of maintaining the correct body weight.

Time! Time! It's always too long and there's never enough!

abchandler · June 2007

Eat more, take in fewer calories overall

"I don't want to change the world. For me, happiness is the most important thing and if I'm happy then it shows in my work." Freddie Mercury

Garybee · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by fatbee

"
Only, what a dismal view of humanity you must have. The entire obesity crisis throughout the western world and the tens and tens of millions of people suffering, dying prematurely (and costing you an awful lot of tax BTW,) is just down to self-indulgence is it?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think that and laziness pretty much covers all but the tiniest percentage.

Hypocrisy is only a bad thing in other people.

fatbee · June 2007

"For most people, if they are at the "wrong" weight it's because they've consumed inappropriately. "Wrong" amounts or the "wrong" choices."

Yes but current obesity levels are significantly down to the fact that what the so-called experts define as the "right" choices, is increasingly proving to be wrong : Eating fat is not the problem, (eating fat along with a lot of carbs is though.) Nor, in isolation, is the number of calories consumed.

"You dont see much obesity in most parts of Africa. Not much in Japan/Korea where the diet is much lower is saturated fats. " Fat people are fat because they over eat "

But look at the obesity seen in people of Japanese and Korean origin when they start eating a western/American diet. And there are many examples of very high-fat traditional diets (both in Africa and elsewhere) which are associated with very low levels of obesity and cardiovascular disease, but where these health benefits disappear when a "modern" diet is adopted.

"Fat people are fat because they over eat "

This is usually partially true, but the trouble is that to most people, "overeating" means consuning food in quantities that are believed to lead or contribute to obesity. So it's a rather meaninglessly and pointless self-referential truism.

Losing Weight post No 5334 (sorry)

Comments

Categories