Working out Calories with Elite Mag and Motoactv?

geebus

Just got myself a turbo trainer to get some cycling done regardless of weather (and I'm assigned to puppy-sitting duties this weekend, not sure if a five month old whippet can manage the >40mph descents on my usual half hour route!)

Trainer: Elite Mag Speed Alu
Computer: Motoactv with motorola HRM and speed/cadence
Bike: Charge Scourer

First focus is calorie burn as I'm nearing the end of losing 4 1/2 stone, so trying to be careful about calories in vs calories out.
(Though, of course fitness is still important - as well as general fitness, hoping to maybe do some tri's, as well as doing occasional XC events etc - may do some road events too, just for a bit of different fitness.)

On the road, the motoactv seems to provide a fairly reasonable figure for calorie burn.
However, not sure how accurate it is/will be on the turbo trainer with variable resistance.
If I set it to 'stationary bike' it doesn't pick up speed/cadence data, so I've been using normal cycling, but set to indoor so it doesn't try and get a GPS lock.

I've tried to find some data for the resistance offered (it has five levels), which I presume would let me work out what was going on and thus the accuracy, but can't find anything.

GiantMike

Not sure on the specifics of your issue, but can you use your road experience/data to guestimate the outcome. For example, if you expect to use 600kcal per hour on the road for a 'normal workout', then it's safe to assume you'll be using the same for a similar TT workout.

Trev The Rev

GiantMike wrote:

Not sure on the specifics of your issue, but can you use your road experience/data to guestimate the outcome. For example, if you expect to use 600kcal per hour on the road for a 'normal workout', then it's safe to assume you'll be using the same for a similar TT workout.

You would do better worrying about nutrients and food quality and balance rather than trying to count calories in and calories burnt.

SBezza

Trev The Rev wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

Not sure on the specifics of your issue, but can you use your road experience/data to guestimate the outcome. For example, if you expect to use 600kcal per hour on the road for a 'normal workout', then it's safe to assume you'll be using the same for a similar TT workout.

You would do better worrying about nutrients and food quality and balance rather than trying to count calories in and calories burnt.

That is true, but you do need to worry about calories in and out if you are wanting to lose weight. Eat more than you use, even of high quality unprocessed food, and you will put on weight. Still needs to be calories in < calories out.

Trev The Rev

SBezza wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

GiantMike wrote:

Not sure on the specifics of your issue, but can you use your road experience/data to guestimate the outcome. For example, if you expect to use 600kcal per hour on the road for a 'normal workout', then it's safe to assume you'll be using the same for a similar TT workout.

You would do better worrying about nutrients and food quality and balance rather than trying to count calories in and calories burnt.

That is true, but you do need to worry about calories in and out if you are wanting to lose weight. Eat more than you use, even of high quality unprocessed food, and you will put on weight. Still needs to be calories in < calories out.

Yes agreed, but it is a lot harder to eat too much if you eat high quality unprocessed food. In the long run the calorie counting approach tends not to work for many people and it is no way to live a normal life. It is far better in the long run to change your eating habits.

I think there is also increasing research which casts doubt on the simple calories in calories out argument. Certainly if it were true I would weigh several stone more than I do.

geebus

Cheers for the replies.
Sorry, missed them as no replies in first couple of days.

The thing is that I'd say I certainly work harder on the turbo trainer relatively. I've been working up until 100 calories is shown on the motoactv, but that takes me longer than 100 calories in the 'real world' and generally leaves me a bit more knackered than riding for the same amount of time I'd say - possibly shows I should try harder when outside .

But, that's a good point - maybe I should try cycling for 10-15 minutes at a similar level (maybe matching heart rate) outside and see what that gives me, then work it out from there.

Some ramblings about the rest:

I am VERY good at eating food. These days I'm making a point of going for lower calorie veg like leeks, lettuce and tomato as opposed to say onions, carrots and sweet corn as for those I can eat a good number of calories still.

I've been using the myfitnesspal website/app to track calories and it's been working well for me, as well as a lot on there. I'm looking to maintain as much muscle as possible.
In the end though, it's not actually for the losing weight that I'm so bothered - I was 1.6lb away from my goal this morning.
When I hit my goal I want to be gaining muscle, but not fat where possible. I had hoped to just be able to go for the 'eat loads' strategy, but it seems in reality that these days it's considered best to just go for around 250 calories over your TDEE (which is 1250 more than I'm eating now, so could be worse!). Without tracking calories out with some kind of consistency, it could be easy to be easily double or half that. I'm not saying accuracy - but I do plan to try and work out how accurate the TDEE as worked out by the motoactv is first - so slowly increase calories until may weight stays constant, then see what the calories out vs calories in figures are. So it may be that in reality 2800 out displayed and 2500 eaten keeps my weight constant - so in reality I'd want to eat 2750 when it displayed 2800 burnt.

Personally, I think research that casts doubt on 'calories in vs calories out' tends to be misrepresented. It's basic physics - conservation of energy etc. There is the question of how certain foods affect how our body burns calories - but so far, unfortunately in the vast majority of cases the affects are massively over-reported in my experience.
You won't sell magazines by just saying "calories in vs calories out", of course .

Reality is that I suspect I'll be calorie counting for a long time - I just enjoy nice food too much and find it very easy to eat a lot of it. This is why I have got to where I am in the first place.

Oh and finally - I eat a lot of ready meals. Lost a fair bit of weight eating in ready meals and am at the fittest and leanest I've ever been, I reckon.
Still eat a good range of micro-nutrient rich stuff as well, as padding if nothing else.

danowat

geebus wrote:

The thing is that I'd say I certainly work harder on the turbo trainer relatively. I've been working up until 100 calories is shown on the motoactv, but that takes me longer than 100 calories in the 'real world' and generally leaves me a bit more knackered than riding for the same amount of time I'd say - possibly shows I should try harder when outside .

Possibly not, it's quite normal for like for like power can feel harder on a turbo than it does outside, I'd say 600 cals an hour is about ballpark for an endurance style ride (75%FTP, 83%MHR), I burn 700cals an hour at top end of endurance (210watts).

geebus wrote:

When I hit my goal I want to be gaining muscle, but not fat where possible.

Need to be careful of gaining muscle, if weight loss is the overall goal.......

geebus wrote:

Oh and finally - I eat a lot of ready meals. Lost a fair bit of weight eating in ready meals and am at the fittest and leanest I've ever been, I reckon.
Still eat a good range of micro-nutrient rich stuff as well, as padding if nothing else.

Lose the ready meals.

Herbsman

Trev The Rev wrote:

Yes agreed, but it is a lot harder to eat too much if you eat high quality unprocessed food. In the long run the calorie counting approach tends not to work for many people and it is no way to live a normal life. It is far better in the long run to change your eating habits.

I think there is also increasing research which casts doubt on the simple calories in calories out argument. Certainly if it were true I would weigh several stone more than I do.

Hmm I found this quite interesting http://www.precisionnutrition.com/what-are-your-4-lbs

geebus

Cheers; 600kc an hour doesn't seem unreasonable. Might work it out based on that and see how that goes.
Ideal, I supoose, would be to say do a week just doing an hour a day on the turbo, then another week doing the same outside with calories in the same and see how they compare - but doubt I'd be that disciplined, not inflexible in other aspects of stuff I'm doing for it be that useful!

The overall goal is being fit, strong and having a 'hot body' . I'm naturally 'big boned' so reckon I suit some muscle - no, really - now that I'm am at a lowish body fat my stomach sticks in from my large chest by a bit, which is why I could get away with being overweight ok as my gut still aligned with my ribs when I had a fair bit of flab. Always been reasonably strong.

For the record, I started at 16 stone in May and vague goal is 11 stone 6lb, where upon I plan to start 'bulking' for a bit,then go to another 'cut'. Today I weighed in at 11st7.4lb with 11.8% body fat according to my scales. Was hoping 11st6lb would be 10% body fat; but it's close enough, at least .

Lose the ready meals.

Any more detail why?
I lose weight when I use ready meals. If I prepare for myself I tend to over-eat for a lot of dishes, meaning I put on weight. I 'feel' just as healthy either way - I have good blood pressure etc.

Herbsman wrote:

Hmm I found this quite interesting http://www.precisionnutrition.com/what-are-your-4-lbs

Looks VERY biased tabloid-style to me and rather lacking in science/reasoning. Ironic considering the website name.

How about they compare 200 calories of nuts to the same in rice cakes?
Or 200 calories of banana to 200 calories of 'protein fluff'?

If I get really bored one day, might just do that.

As for the 4lb of food a day thing - that's not my experience.
I do make an effort to eat lots of low-calorie density food. Especially for fruit I find that while, yes, it does satisfy me short term, I'll still be hungry in a couple of hours - just as I would if I'd have had a glass of water with my meal (which is generally what makes up the rest of low calorie density foods.)

Also, the 'swap around' diet seems to contain very little protein. As I'm trying to maintain and gain lean body mass, it'd be silly to cut back on the protein like that - though I probably would end up losing more weight, just more of my muscle.

Oh and I can VERY easily eat a whole large honeydew melon in one sitting. Suddenly getting a good bit of calories in.

danowat

geebus wrote:

Lose the ready meals.

Any more detail why?

Because it's far better to control what ingredients go into your food, most ready meals use too much sugar, salt and additives, using ready meals is a cop out, learn to control your intake.

Trev The Rev

danowat wrote:

geebus wrote:

Lose the ready meals.

Any more detail why?

Because it's far better to control what ingredients go into your food, most ready meals use too much sugar, salt and additives, using ready meals is a cop out, learn to control your intake.

Watch out for the corn syrup in processed food too.

trickydisco

God the whole calorie in calories out thing is a load of rubbish. I changed my diet about a year ago after reading info on diet from a top level coach and reading the 4 hour body. It completely changed everything for me and i became much leaner and understand how my body reacts to different types of food (and ditching the notion of calories in/out)

A calorie is a thermodynamic unit relating to the amount of heat energy released (measured as the temperature increase in water) when something is burned to completion. Your body simply doesn't work that way.

Even taken that the calorie is a poor measure of food energy potential but using it as a convenient conversational description, "calories" eaten doesn't equal "calories" digested/absorbed then made available for energy production.
A whole endocrine/neurocrine network regulates the processes affecting how "calories" are used, and the efficiency of these processes depends on the availability of oxygen, vitmains/minerals and dietary co-factors as well as enzyme levels, biochemical status and physiological efficiency; all of which are affected by general health, eating patterns and physical training.

Until we consider ourselves at a level other than simple heat engines and move on from applying the principles of eighteenth century physics to the human body then there's little chance of really understanding how "we" function with respect to energy conversion, distribution and utilisation...........

Some good info out there about this from Timothy Noakes, Gary Taubes , marks daily apple

trickydisco

Calories context

Many people think weight loss is simply about cutting calories. But context counts here, too. Calories do have context and that’s what I want to explore today. Is a calorie from fat the same as a calorie from protein or carbohydrate? Depends on the context. Does day-to-day calorie monitoring make any difference if your week-to-week weight and energy expenditure are dialed in? Maybe not.


Most people (even many scientists) believe that the body composition challenge is a relatively simple equation: to lose weight you must reduce calories (either eat less or burn more), to gain weight you must add calories, and to maintain weight you keep calories constant. Calories in over calories out.

The truth is, it’s more like a complex equation where you have to factor in many other very important variables

geebus

danowat wrote:

Because it's far better to control what ingredients go into your food, most ready meals use too much sugar, salt and additives, using ready meals is a cop out, learn to control your intake.

I can still control what is in my food by choosing meals with things I am happy with in.
Why is the sugar and salt an issue?
I don't have excess blood pressure and generally stay within a reasonable, though no doubt not-RDA amount of salt (which is a silly concept, especially the INCREDIBLY arbitrary choice for salt).

As for sugar, since reading this, I've been less worried by it:
http://www.simplyshredded.com/the-scien ... -carb.html
(Note; it does cite research to back it up.)

As for 'additives' - what if all the additives are made up from healthy-organic-vegan-complex-whatever stuff? Surely that would make it better, not worse?

And yes, I'd love to learn 'self control' with food when presented with a large portion of nice food.
I'd also love to be disciplined enough to work 14 hours a day, every day and enjoy it.
But, back in reality we have to take account of the people we are and develop the best strategy to meet our goals.

If you have any research that specifically backs up the claims I'm disputing (not research that missed correlation for causation, of course), I'd love to see it.


Trev:
Do you mean high fructose corn syrup?
If so, seems to be pretty rare in the UK; it's the US that has big 'issues' with it.
If you mean just 'corn syrup', then again, don't see it too much apart from actually in deserts - we'd usually call it either golden syrup or treacle.

trickydisco:
I can assure you that a diet which allowed unlimited vegetables and unlimited lean meat would NOT work for me on the very basis of calories in vs calories out. I love lean meat and could eat an awful lot of sweet potatoes, onions and more calorie dense stuff listed as 'unlimited', given the chance.
Although I haven't watched it yet, I'd suggest a watch of 'fat head'; a rebuttal to 'Superize me', where the presenter gets lean and fit only eating McDonalds, basically... but instead going for overall lower calories, rather than higher calories in Superzie me.
Oh and it's generally considered that the 'average' person shouldn't lose more than 2lb a week (so a bit under a kg). Further research suggests that of course it's related to the amount of fat you have in the first place - so you might be able to 'safely' lose 2kg per week of fat if you have a lot - but if you don't, you're likely to be losing muscle.

Your second link amused me, again. It compares apples to fried bacon. How about we compared fried apples to lean grilled bacon instead? Instead of butter, how about we compare whipped cream to dried fruit? Suddenly the 'whole food' doesn't seem quite so good.
And I would quite agree that 'a calorie is not a calorie' when it comes to body composition - you DO need a good bit of protein in there. You also need to consider carbs for general daily energy, unless you're getting really funky.

Trev The Rev

I meant high fructose corn syrup or corn syrup. I don't think they are allowed to call either of them golden syrup or treacle which is inverted sugar.

I don't know where you got corn syrup being golden syrup or treacle from. Corn syrup is made from corn (maize) treacle or golden syrup is made from sugar derived from sugar cane or sugar beet.

geebus

I got it from some incredibly poor googling; my apologies.

However, the point stands that it's not really used anywhere near the levels it is in the US.

trickydisco

Oh and it's generally considered that the 'average' person shouldn't lose more than 2lb a week (so a bit under a kg).

Define 'average' Where is this guidance?


All i know is i tried this 'die't and lost 6kg and which took me down to around 12% body fat. I've never counted the amount of calories i've had in a day and pretty much eat what I want.Many, many people have done the same and had similar results to me. 3 people at work that have wanted to lose some excess body fat and questioned it like mad. Told them to try it for 2 weeks, guess what they all lost some weight (fat).

I just get tired of people banging on about very archaic calories in / calories out concept when it's wholey more complex than that. Like i said a calories a thermodynamic unit relating to the amount of heat energy released (measured as the temperature increase in water)

You also need to consider carbs for general daily energy, unless you're getting really funky.

If you read the diet it isn't no or low carb. it's low GI. There are plenty of carbs in vegetables


Still Counting Calories? Your Weight-Loss Plan May Be Outdated

The new research, by five nutrition and public health experts at Harvard University, is by far the most detailed long-term analysis of the factors that influence weight gain, involving 120,877 well-educated men and women who were healthy and not obese at the start of the study.

geebus

The guidance is all over the internet for a start. Average was put in quote marks due to it's lack of definition .
Here's one place, which cites references (to be fair, I haven't checked the specific references out in this case):
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/fast-w ... ss/AN01621
There's plenty more around.

It's a bit harder to find the 'science' behind the claims.
And we get in to a bit more accurate models.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615

I believe this basically suggests that we should limit our deficit to around 31 calories per pound of fat - as faster than that our body isn't able to release the energy from the fat quickly enough.

Yes, calories relate to energy directly. So far, from what I've seen, the conservation of energy etc are still accepted rules for who our bodies work.

Carbs were mentioned generally in relation to nutrition, not as a criticism of your diet - note that I pointed out if I did it I would easily gain weight from sweet potatoes.

I don't have a link to specific resources, but I believe it's generally accepted that it's often easier to lose fat in the first part of a diet. So 6kg over 3 weeks may not be too unreasonable for such models.
I've lost 28 stone and would be willing to bet that had I tried to do it at even higher deficit, I'd have lost even more muscle.

Did the people at your work test both body fat and strength before and after?

Your final link again doesn't really consider correlation and causation. Sure, it makes for good newspaper sales, but it certainly does nothing to dispel calories in vs calories out.

trickydisco

So 6kg over 3 weeks may not be too unreasonable for such models.

Apologies i lost 6kg over 3-4 months. I'm not really following the 'diet' anymore but keep a lot of the principles like no cereals and eggs for breakfast and i eat a lot of vegetables. I still eat pretty much what i want (bread, mince pies, ice cream) and have never gone above 70kg.