Weight vs Body Fat

itboffin

In my never ending quest for excuses as to why I'm so slow I'd all but convinced myself that it's because I'm overweight, clutching at straws. Anywho I've dropped quite a few pounds this year and still not really any better, it can't be miles as I spend a lot of time on the bike. Perhaps as most of my miles are low intensity commutes those miles lack th quality needed to improve, nah must be something else!?

Now I'm thinking it's my body fat that's at fault, I have a set of those bathroom scales that measures BF % they read yesterday as

169lb with 18% lard

Not cool so whilst at the hospital I had them check professionally

Again 169lb with 14% butter

Now that seems a bit more realistic, so what should I be aiming for? Weight loss or lower body fat?

[I see a power meter purchase on the horizon]

jonginge

Stop clutching at straws while cycling. That'll help no end.

You're not slow. You're currently injured.

Some high intensity turbo sessions will help, you need to train your body (+brain) to realise going fast isn't going to irreparably damage it. (Google: central governor theory)

Butterd2

Those scales are crap. Mine said I was 21% when I weighed 17.5st, now I'm 15.5st they still say I'm 21% fat. Or maybe I've just lost 2 stone of muscle :shock:

il_principe

Slow? You're not slow. However do you mean slow when attempting to sprint, or slow on longer rides?

greg66_tri_v2.0

Il Principe wrote:

Slow? You're not slow. However do you mean slow when attempting to sprint, or slow on longer rides?

This, with the addition of "or on climbs". Getting a faster sprint is unlikely to make you correspondingly faster up a hill, and vice versa.

Identify the goal, work out the strategy...

mzm70

I think you might find this an interesting read

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Racing-Weight-M ... 1934030511

It answers a lot of the questions you are asking about weight and leaness (sp?) I'm only about 1/3rd of the way through and I've learnt a lot.

Stuey01

Those scales are notoriously shite. they measure electrical impedence in your body, that is different in fat and other tissue. Unfortunately they are also thrown off by hydration levels and all sorts of other difficult to control variables.

A more consistent way to get a bodyfat % would be a skinfold test, however this shouldn't be treated as definitive %, but rather for the purposes of comparison over time. At least it is a little more consistent.

Oh, and in answer to your question, reduce bodyfat % and retain muscle should be your objective, which would result in a drop on the scales. The holy grail is to reduce bodyfat whilst building muscle, though not necessarily for bike riding as overall weight is a factor.

itboffin

So it would be two things that need improvement, 1st hills are painfully slow unless they're short and sharp, that's why I figured weight loss could be the key. 2nd why am I always so knackered if I even attempt to push the pace to soon. I really come into my own on longer riders ie over 50 miles I actually start to speed up quite considerably and never feel that tired at the end of a sportive, therefore I can't be hitting my limits ??

jonginge

mzm70 wrote:

I think you might find this an interesting read

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Racing-Weight-M ... 1934030511

It answers a lot of the questions you are asking about weight and leaness (sp?) I'm only about 1/3rd of the way through and I've learnt a lot.

This book is also great:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Runners-Body-Ex ... pd_sim_b_1
It's from the guys that run the The science of sport site. Not just useful for runners...[/url]

jonginge

itboffin wrote:

So it would be two things that need improvement, 1st hills are painfully slow unless they're short and sharp, that's why I figured weight loss could be the key. 2nd why am I always so knackered if I even attempt to push the pace to soon. I really come into my own on longer riders ie over 50 miles I actually start to speed up quite considerably and never feel that tired at the end of a sportive, therefore I can't be hitting my limits ??

For the long hills you need to up your sustainable power (or lose weight without losing power). 2hr tempo rides are your friend. That loop we did the other week but no stopping at the pubs

greg66_tri_v2.0

itboffin wrote:

So it would be two things that need improvement, 1st hills are painfully slow unless they're short and sharp, that's why I figured weight loss could be the key. 2nd why am I always so knackered if I even attempt to push the pace to soon. I really come into my own on longer riders ie over 50 miles I actually start to speed up quite considerably and never feel that tired at the end of a sportive, therefore I can't be hitting my limits ??

Hills - pretty simple in theory - increase the power to weight ratio [ETA (ta, JG)] that you can sustain for a long period.

Though if you look at the pros, losing weight is a better side to work on that increasing power - Cancellara, for example must be able to put out huge wattages for sustained periods, but they are not high enough to haul his frame up a hill as quickly as Schlek or Contador, even though those two likely put out much lower sustained wattages.

I take the bolthole retreat on hills: basic physiology means that some people are always going to be better than others on hills. I always think when I ride alone that I do OK on hills. It's only when I ride with people who rock up them faster than I realise how deluded I am.

Longer distances. Hmm. Dunno. Have you been psychologically scarred as a result of going off too fast in the past? Sitten sie down, und tell mir about your mutter und your farter...

rjsterry

Interestingly (or perhaps not) my brother and I both have the same whippet physiology (I'm just over 10st, he's a little more, but a couple of inches taller) but last time we rode together, whilst I could leave him behind on the flat, he did a passable impression of JG around the Derbyshire hills. The main difference between us is that he does a fair bit of swimming and some running, whereas I only cycle. I'd guess that swimming requires the more sustained output that JG & G66 describe, hence his better hill climbing ability.

I've lost a fair bit of body fat (but no weight) since I extended my commute from 10 to 14 miles, so I'd be interested to find out whether there has been any corresponding improvement in my hill climbing ability as compared with my brother.

Greg T

So...

In April 2008 i was a svelte 91.2 kg, 200lbs, 14st 6lbs....

Electro lard scales pegged me at 22.2% lard

I'm stumpy.... 5' 10" - not good

So....

Today I'm circa 82 kg, 180 lbs, < 13 stone. this mornning my electro lard scales told me I'm 19.5% blubber.

So......

I've lost 9kg, 20lbs, 1.5 stone or 10% of my body weight and yet my electro lard scales say i've only dropped about 3% body fat......

Electro lard scales lie.....

I am however defo faster on the hills - which is just as well as I sucked bad when when i was 14 stone.

I have a plan to do the Surrey Legs of Steel in under 3hours next year and want to be sub 80kg for it.

Power to weight is a muddyfunster

dhope

Sigh. 9% body fat and I'm still slow. At least it's a good place to start from.

Clever Pun

Greg66 wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Slow? You're not slow. However do you mean slow when attempting to sprint, or slow on longer rides?

This, with the addition of "or on climbs". Getting a faster sprint is unlikely to make you correspondingly faster up a hill, and vice versa.

Identify the goal, drive the wifes car to work...

sound advice... not for me though

SamWise72

Greg T wrote:

So...

In April 2008 i was a svelte 91.2 kg, 200lbs, 14st 6lbs....

Electro lard scales pegged me at 22.2% lard

I'm stumpy.... 5' 10" - not good

So....

Today I'm circa 82 kg, 180 lbs, < 13 stone. this mornning my electro lard scales told me I'm 19.5% blubber.

So......

I've lost 9kg, 20lbs, 1.5 stone or 10% of my body weight and yet my electro lard scales say i've only dropped about 3% body fat......

Electro lard scales lie.....

I am however defo faster on the hills - which is just as well as I sucked bad when when i was 14 stone.

I have a plan to do the Surrey Legs of Steel in under 3hours next year and want to be sub 80kg for it.

Power to weight is a muddyfunster

But.......If you've lost 3 of your previous 22%, surely you've lost slightly more than 10% of your body fat? I mean, for that 3% to be really 3%, the initial figure would have had to be 100%?

22% of your total body weight was fat, which means that previously, 44lbs was fat, right? Now, 19% of your 180 lbs is fat, which is (calculates) 34.2lbs is fat. So you've dropped almost a quarter of your fat. I think.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Clever Pun wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Slow? You're not slow. However do you mean slow when attempting to sprint, or slow on longer rides?

This, with the addition of "or on climbs". Getting a faster sprint is unlikely to make you correspondingly faster up a hill, and vice versa.

Identify the goal, drive the wifes car to work...

sound advice... not for me though

Haven't you got some bruises to nurse, courtesy of the beatings the girls give you in your "mixed martial arts" sessions?

MonkeyMonster

dhope wrote:

Sigh. 9% body fat and I'm still slow. At least it's a good place to start from.

Don't you want 11-15% anyway, any lower and it becomes negative for health - fats are good for proteins, hormones etc. some necessary nutrients only dissolve in fat...?

rjsterry

Indeed. Anyone see that article in CW a while back when they put three staff members in 'the pod' (a little cubicle thingy that is about the most accurate way of measuring body fat. One of the 'victims' had so little body fat that it wouldn't register! It was eventually estimated by other means at 6% :shock: upon which he was given various instructions to help build up to a more healthy level. Apparently he had wondered why he felt the cold so much.

There was also some talk that Wiggo's 'Machinist' build may have partly accounted for his performance (or lack thereof) in the TdF.

Clever Pun

Greg66 wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Slow? You're not slow. However do you mean slow when attempting to sprint, or slow on longer rides?

This, with the addition of "or on climbs". Getting a faster sprint is unlikely to make you correspondingly faster up a hill, and vice versa.

Identify the goal, drive the wifes car to work...

sound advice... not for me though

Haven't you got some bruises to nurse, courtesy of the beatings the girls give you in your "mixed martial arts" sessions?

I'll be cycling home with a pretty much dead leg as it happens... free scalp on offer

dhope

MonkeyMonster wrote:

dhope wrote:

Sigh. 9% body fat and I'm still slow. At least it's a good place to start from.

Don't you want 11-15% anyway, any lower and it becomes negative for health - fats are good for proteins, hormones etc. some necessary nutrients only dissolve in fat...?

Think 9% is fine. I eat plenty and very much average build.
Wikipedia (I know, a bastion of questionable info) reckons 6-24% is the range from athlete to average, so still quite normal.

(and I'm far from an athlete. about 75Kgs and 5'10", entirely run of the mill)

il_principe

MonkeyMonster wrote:

dhope wrote:

Sigh. 9% body fat and I'm still slow. At least it's a good place to start from.

Don't you want 11-15% anyway, any lower and it becomes negative for health - fats are good for proteins, hormones etc. some necessary nutrients only dissolve in fat...?

That sounds like something a fatty would say...

MonkeyMonster

dhope wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

dhope wrote:

Sigh. 9% body fat and I'm still slow. At least it's a good place to start from.

Don't you want 11-15% anyway, any lower and it becomes negative for health - fats are good for proteins, hormones etc. some necessary nutrients only dissolve in fat...?

Think 9% is fine. I eat plenty and very much average build.
Wikipedia (I know, a bastion of questionable info) reckons 6-24% is the range from athlete to average, so still quite normal.

(and I'm far from an athlete. about 75Kgs and 5'10", entirely run of the mill)

fair enough - though just because you eat plenty, doesn't mean you have enough body fat - two entirely separate bits of information That's about my weight and size too but I'll put money on my fat % being higher than 9

Rich158

ITB, my scales put my body fat percentage over 20 at times :shock: Now I can't be arsed to read through the thread to see what advice you've already been given, here's my two bobs worth, apologies if its all already been said.

If you ride always ride at 20mph don't be surprised if you can't go much faster. To get an increase in speed to need work at a particular level and tax the various systems in a particular way. Getting sucked into a large number of low intensity miles is a huge mistake and exactly the reason I dropped out of the stats earlier this year. Since I've been doing more targetted high ntensity work I've gone from not being able to finish a race as a cat 4 to cat 3. A good article is here http://www.pbscience.com/component/docman/cat_view/970-pbscience-in-the-media.html, have a look at the Jargon Buster article, it explodes a few myths and should give you a few ideas.

And one more thing I know you'll hate to hear, DON'T NEGLECT YOUR RECOVERY TIME

rolf_f

I was measured for body fat before I took up cycling. 6%. I ate more than people thought I did.

Now I cycle over 20 hours a week. I weigh the same - I presume the fat content is the same. I eat even more.

I know my fat content is low but I'm not a fatty so I don't think there is anything unhealthy about that

I am reasonably fast enough up hills that I get annoyed if anyone can keep up with me!