Weightloss

slowmart

So I'm using myfitness pal and Garmin which sync fine.

I'm aiming to loose 2lbs a week and this with a 1200 net calorie daily in take. So do I stick to the calorie intake without making adjustment for the output in energy used?

the 1200 intake isn't a problem but I want to avoid illness by under consuming nutrients. Average calorie expenditure is from 1200 to 3000 a ride.

Aprils mile target is 400 and a calorie burn of 20,000 and I'll hit both, the miles just about but calorie burn will be substantially higher and I aim to increase both achieved measures by 10% for May.

Any advice appreciated and thanks in advance

NeXXus

1200cals per day is about what a 12yr old would consume and less than the average female.

Your calorie burn calc is a bit crap, and inaccurate and well, crap..

twotyred

Dial it back to 1 lb a week. More sustainable and you won't feel hungry all the time.

bobmcstuff

You absolutely do need to eat more for exercise particularly straight afterwards if you're trying to run a big deficit.

I don't know how you're calculating calorie burn but as above the calculation is likely to be rather inaccurate,however that doesn't mean it won't work for your purposes (making you eat less and do more exercise).

I lost 18kg between January 2014 and January 2015 (now smack in the middle of healthy weight BMI), mostly in the second half of last year by calorie counting and doing a lot of cycling. If I did say a couple of hours ride after dinner then went to bed without eating any more I would feel terrible the next day (not really a surprise...). When I'm eating normally I find I don't usually need to bother about recovery drinks and all that stuff but if you're trying to run a big deficit then it becomes very important to make sure you get something in after exercise (for me at least - YMMV).

keef66

I'm losing weight steadily on the 5:2 eating pattern, and that's despite not being able to cycle for nearly 3 weeks due to a catalogue of minor medical issues.

Eat more or less what you like on 5 days a week, and only 600 calories on 2 non consecutive days. I like many using 5:2 choose Mondays and Thursdays; you can relax on Fri/Sat/Sun and you get 2 normal days between your diet ones. It's a lot easier to stick to than daily calorie restriction because you know you can eat normally the next day, and I'm not obsessing about the calorific content of everything I eat.

On diet days I eat nothing till 18:30 ish and then just have poached eggs or beans on toast; plenty of calories left for a couple of mugs of tea.

Doing this I find I can still ride in the evenings even on a diet day, and I don't feel I have to compensate for riding by eating extra. I've been losing a pound a week when not exercising, and 2 pounds a week when I'm able to cycle too.

markhewitt1978

bobmcstuff wrote:

You absolutely do need to eat more for exercise particularly straight afterwards if you're trying to run a big deficit.

That's true. However there is a big difference to what I used to do which was get in from a ride at lunchtime, then have a massive lunch, and then spend the rest of the day grazing, didn't lose anything that way.

So instead now I have an omelette and some toast and that does me nicely until quite a bit later in the day.

2lb a week is possible but ambitious, even aiming for 1.5lb per week would be better.

My main tip is weigh yourself every morning at the same time, there's lots of day to day variation but the main purpose is that it keeps your mind focused on the task in hand.

NeXXus

markhewitt1978 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

You absolutely do need to eat more for exercise particularly straight afterwards if you're trying to run a big deficit.

That's true. However there is a big difference to what I used to do which was get in from a ride at lunchtime, then have a massive lunch, and then spend the rest of the day grazing, didn't lose anything that way.

So instead now I have an omelette and some toast and that does me nicely until quite a bit later in the day.

2lb a week is possible but ambitious, even aiming for 1.5lb per week would be better.

My main tip is weigh yourself every morning at the same time, there's lots of day to day variation but the main purpose is that it keeps your mind focused on the task in hand.

Well no it doesn't, bodyweight fluctuates daily, a weekly or fortnightly trend is ultimately better and a more realistic timeframe to observe loss.

markhewitt1978

Whatever suits you. I found weighing myself once a week I wasn't getting anywhere. Once a day has had me far more focused and I've lost a stone so far.

keef66

I try to just weigh in on sat mornings. Daily weighing sees my weight apparently fluctuating, which I feel is counter productive.

mpatts

Calorie intake is quite a personal thing. I'm 64kg and I fit that my 'resting' calorie useage is about 1500 calories a day. This is rather unscientific in that this is the intake I can have without loosing or putting on weight.

As for ride data, I've recently switched to a power meter which ie measuring calories much more accurately and found everything else hopelessly over estimated calorie useage.

ai_1

NeXXus wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

You absolutely do need to eat more for exercise particularly straight afterwards if you're trying to run a big deficit.

That's true. However there is a big difference to what I used to do which was get in from a ride at lunchtime, then have a massive lunch, and then spend the rest of the day grazing, didn't lose anything that way.

So instead now I have an omelette and some toast and that does me nicely until quite a bit later in the day.

2lb a week is possible but ambitious, even aiming for 1.5lb per week would be better.

My main tip is weigh yourself every morning at the same time, there's lots of day to day variation but the main purpose is that it keeps your mind focused on the task in hand.

Well no it doesn't, bodyweight fluctuates daily, a weekly or fortnightly trend is ultimately better and a more realistic timeframe to observe loss.

The fact that it fluctuates quite a bit daily is IMO a very good reason to weigh more often.
If you only take one measurement weekly or forthnightly you don't know what impact the measurement noise is having on that figure. If you measure a few times a week, you have a good idea if any given reading is on the upper or lower end of a fluctuation. Plot your weights over say, an 8 week period. With weekly or forthnightly weigh ins you have only a small number of points and the progression in weight loss is likely to look pretty erratic even if it's been quite consistent in reality. However if you weigh-in say 5 times a week you end up 40 points. They'll likely have a fair bit of scatter due to daily fluctuations but you'll be able to see through that noise to the general trend.

If there's lots of noise in a set of data you use more, not less, measurements to see the overall pattern.

NeXXus

Ai_1 wrote:

NeXXus wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

You absolutely do need to eat more for exercise particularly straight afterwards if you're trying to run a big deficit.

That's true. However there is a big difference to what I used to do which was get in from a ride at lunchtime, then have a massive lunch, and then spend the rest of the day grazing, didn't lose anything that way.

So instead now I have an omelette and some toast and that does me nicely until quite a bit later in the day.

2lb a week is possible but ambitious, even aiming for 1.5lb per week would be better.

My main tip is weigh yourself every morning at the same time, there's lots of day to day variation but the main purpose is that it keeps your mind focused on the task in hand.

Well no it doesn't, bodyweight fluctuates daily, a weekly or fortnightly trend is ultimately better and a more realistic timeframe to observe loss.

The fact that it fluctuates quite a bit daily is IMO a very good reason to weigh more often.
If you only take one measurement weekly or forthnightly you don't know what impact the measurement noise is having on that figure. If you measure a few times a week, you have a good idea if any given reading is on the upper or lower end of a fluctuation. Plot your weights over say, an 8 week period. With weekly or forthnightly weigh ins you have only a small number of points and the progression in weight loss is likely to look pretty erratic even if it's been quite consistent in reality. However if you weigh-in say 5 times a week you end up 40 points. They'll likely have a fair bit of scatter due to daily fluctuations but you'll be able to see through that noise to the general trend.

If there's lots of noise in a set of data you use more, not less, measurements to see the overall pattern.

Nonsense..

markhewitt1978

Please say why it's nonsense. It's completely right, if you want to eliminate noise you turn the sample rate up.

e.g. some recent weights.
Friday 12st 1.0lb
Saturday 12st 0.8lb
Sunday 12st 3lb
Monday 12st 0.6lb

From that I can clearly see that the Sunday reading was an outlier. But if that was my only measurement of the week I wouldn't know that.

NeXXus

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Please say why it's nonsense. It's completely right, if you want to eliminate noise you turn the sample rate up.

e.g. some recent weights.
Friday 12st 1.0lb
Saturday 12st 0.8lb
Sunday 12st 3lb
Monday 12st 0.6lb

From that I can clearly see that the Sunday reading was an outlier. But if that was my only measurement of the week I wouldn't know that.

You don't need "outliers" What you need is a downward trend over a longer more reliable period of time. Noise? WTF?

What you have there is heavier one day,lighter the next but that doesn't actually tell you what net loss for that period, whether 7/14/21/28 days or whatever was. Because net loss is what matters, Monday - Tuesday tells you absolutely NOTHING useful.

keef66

@ Ali / Mark. You're correct, but I'd be constantly comparing weight changes from one day to the next, and if it had apparently gone up it would be demotivating. Weekly weighing has seen a steady downward trend, disturbed only by a fortnight of gluttony during business trips.

ai_1

keef66 wrote:

@ Ali / Mark. You're correct, but I'd be constantly comparing weight changes from one day to the next, and if it had apparently gone up it would be demotivating. Weekly weighing has seen a steady downward trend, disturbed only by a fortnight of gluttony during business trips.

I think if you did this all the time you'd find you could easily ignore the occasional spikes in the knowledge that the general trend is looking okay. Chances are that the following day would be back where you expect it - at worst you'd be de-motivated for a day or two as opposed to a couple of weeks if you were measuring less often and happened to measure on a dip and then a spike thus getting a very negatively distorted impression, or just as bad, measuring a spike and then a dip leading you to think you were doing great and get unrealistic expectations you could never repeat! You know you're not gaining or losing 0.5kg from one day to the next unless it's due to dehydration, a big meal, a long time since you visited the bathroom or simply inaccuracy in the scales. So daily measurements will allow you get some understanding of the fluctuations that do not reflect on your muscle or fat content.

ai_1

NeXXus wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Please say why it's nonsense. It's completely right, if you want to eliminate noise you turn the sample rate up.

e.g. some recent weights.
Friday 12st 1.0lb
Saturday 12st 0.8lb
Sunday 12st 3lb
Monday 12st 0.6lb

From that I can clearly see that the Sunday reading was an outlier. But if that was my only measurement of the week I wouldn't know that.

You don't need "outliers" What you need is a downward trend over a longer more reliable period of time. Noise? WTF?

What you have there is heavier one day,lighter the next but that doesn't actually tell you what net loss for that period, whether 7/14/21/28 days or whatever was. Because net loss is what matters, Monday - Tuesday tells you absolutely NOTHING useful.

You're not making much sense here.
You don't "need" outliers but you'll more than likely get them all the same. No-one is telling you that the long term trend is not the desirable information. We're telling you that there's a good reason to measure more often in order to be able to see it more accurately.

NeXXus wrote:

Noise? WTF?

Well this tells me you haven't much experience with measurement, experimentation, statistics or anything of that sort. Am I correct? Noise is the daily fluctuations that you are accepting do exist. Outliers are essentially any big, unusual fluctuations and are part of this noise. Noise can obscure the overall trend if you only take occasional readings and assume they are accurate.

NeXXus

Ai_1 wrote:

We're telling you that there's a good reason to measure more often in order to be able to see it more accurately.

There isn't. It makes no difference if you're 3lb heavier on tuesday morning than you were monday but have lost 2lb for the week, 3lb for the fortnight or 6lbs in the month of March.

Well this tells me you haven't much experience with measurement, experimentation, statistics or anything of that sort. Am I correct?

I have zero experience of losing 7stone or the subsequent gaining of fitness related qualifications. I may have to bow to superior knowledge

Noise is the daily fluctuations that you are accepting do exist. Outliers are essentially any big, unusual fluctuations and are part of this noise. Noise can obscure the overall trend if you only take occasional readings and assume they are accurate.

I got that. There is absolutely no worthwhile need or reason to weigh yourself every day and create "noise" in the first place.

sloppyschleckonds

What medication do the Team Sky boys use that gives them massive weight loss in a short space of time?

HTH

NeXXus

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

What medication do the Team Sky boys use that gives them massive weight loss in a short space of time?

HTH

I think it's called 6000calories and hard work 8)

ai_1

NeXXus wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

We're telling you that there's a good reason to measure more often in order to be able to see it more accurately.

There isn't. It makes no difference if you're 3lb heavier on tuesday morning than you were monday but have lost 2lb for the week, 3lb for the fortnight or 6lbs in the month of March.

This seems pretty obvious to me so I'm not certain if I'm missing your point, you're missing mine, or you're trolling. If as you say above, I get a measurement 3lbs higher on Tuesday than Monday and I only take one measurement in the week then my understanding of what's going on with my weight is massively dependent on which day I weigh myself. Maybe I weigh on Monday and think I lost 2lbs compared to the previous weeks measurement. Maybe I weigh on Tuesday and think I've gained 1lb. Without measuring on both days I don't know there are big fluctuations drowning out the signal so I assume the 2 readings (1 last week, 1 this week) tell me everything I need to know. In fact they don't even tell me if I'm losing or gaining weight.
Agreed? If not, why?

NeXXus wrote:

Well this tells me you haven't much experience with measurement, experimentation, statistics or anything of that sort. Am I correct?

I have zero experience of losing 7stone or the subsequent gaining of fitness related qualifications. I may have to bow to superior knowledge

This specific point under discussion has nothing to do with experience losing weight. It's just about how you measure things and see trends in data.

NeXXus wrote:

Noise is the daily fluctuations that you are accepting do exist. Outliers are essentially any big, unusual fluctuations and are part of this noise. Noise can obscure the overall trend if you only take occasional readings and assume they are accurate.

I got that. There is absolutely no worthwhile need or reason to weigh yourself every day and create "noise" in the first place.

More measurements don't "create" noise. They reveal it.
If you want to be able to see an accurate trend in weight over relatively small periods of time (weeks) and use that to motivate or modify your efforts then weekly measurements are a very poor way to do so.

NeXXus

Ai_1 wrote:

This seems pretty obvious to me so I'm not certain if I'm missing your point, you're missing mine, or you're trolling. If as you say above, I get a measurement 3lbs higher on Tuesday than Monday and I only take one measurement in the week then my understanding of what's going on with my weight is massively dependent on which day I weigh myself. Maybe I weigh on Monday and think I lost 2lbs compared to the previous weeks measurement. Maybe I weigh on Tuesday and think I've gained 1lb. Without measuring on both days I don't know there are big fluctuations drowning out the signal so I assume the 2 readings (1 last week, 1 this week) tell me everything I need to know. In fact they don't even tell me if I'm losing or gaining weight.
Agreed? If not, why?

13st dead Monday, 12st 11 seven days later. Doesn't need to be complicated than that. What happened tues/wed/thurs/friday/sat/sun is irrelevant, you've lost 3lb in that week.

More measurements don't "create" noise. They reveal it.

Again, there is absolutely no need.

If you want to be able to see an accurate trend in weight over relatively small periods of time (weeks) and use that to motivate or modify your efforts then weekly measurements are a very poor way to do so.

I for one wasn't referring to modifying efforts, which I'm assuming you are referring to calorie intake and level of exercise.

Because, weighing yourself 7x a week, or twice a month and noting numbers is not the same thing as consuming less cals. You can't do the latter without knowing if you're losing weight, losing weight rapidly, not losing at all, or putting weight on. It's not what I have been saying, and it's not the same point.

mpatts

My 2p's

What is under discussion here is being able to spot "signals from noise", in other words to be able to spot any trend in any data. The only way you can do that is to take as many measurements as you can, and apply a standard statistical technique which removes any noise from the data. Weight is a great example as it naturally varies, so you don't want to take point to point measurements one week apart to track your weight as you might just spot a change due to natural variation in your weight.

To take an extreme example, say I weigh myself every 5 minutes throughout the day, my weight will vary +- 1k, depending on how much I have eaten or drunk. If you happen to take a one measurement at a time of the day were you are 'light' and then a measurement on another day where you are 'heavy', what you are actually doing is comparing the same result, rather than showing you have put on weight. So, in other words, to get an acurate result you need to plot a lot of data.

NeXXus

mpatts wrote:

To take an extreme example, say I weigh myself every 5 minutes throughout the day, my weight will vary +- 1k, depending on how much I have eaten or drunk. If you happen to take a one measurement at a time of the day were you are 'light' and then a measurement on another day where you are 'heavy', what you are actually doing is comparing the same result, rather than showing you have put on weight. So, in other words, to get an acurate result you need to plot a lot of data.

Comparing it for what purpose or reason? Why do you need an "accurate" result of daily fluctations that every human body will go through??

This is just gumpf..

slowmart

mpatts wrote:

Calorie intake is quite a personal thing. I'm 64kg and I fit that my 'resting' calorie useage is about 1500 calories a day. This is rather unscientific in that this is the intake I can have without loosing or putting on weight.

As for ride data, I've recently switched to a power meter which ie measuring calories much more accurately and found everything else hopelessly over estimated calorie useage.

I'm 20lbs over my ideal weight and appreciate calorie consumption and expenditure are specific and while I use my garmin as a measure for expenditure is there any other accurate way of measuring calorie usage other than a power meter which i can't stretch to?


Failing that i don't find the 1200 cal intake that hard to stick to and I don't get hungry but the weight isn't dropping off so I'm questioning my tactics. My rides are sporadic and may come in bursts, i.e. last week three days back to back with decreasing intensity due to being unfit....

Any advice on the above questions would be gratefully received.

ai_1

NeXXus wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

This seems pretty obvious to me so I'm not certain if I'm missing your point, you're missing mine, or you're trolling. If as you say above, I get a measurement 3lbs higher on Tuesday than Monday and I only take one measurement in the week then my understanding of what's going on with my weight is massively dependent on which day I weigh myself. Maybe I weigh on Monday and think I lost 2lbs compared to the previous weeks measurement. Maybe I weigh on Tuesday and think I've gained 1lb. Without measuring on both days I don't know there are big fluctuations drowning out the signal so I assume the 2 readings (1 last week, 1 this week) tell me everything I need to know. In fact they don't even tell me if I'm losing or gaining weight.
Agreed? If not, why?

13st dead Monday, 12st 11 seven days later. Doesn't need to be complicated than that. What happened tues/wed/thurs/friday/sat/sun is irrelevant, you've lost 3lb in that week.

More measurements don't "create" noise. They reveal it.

Again, there is absolutely no need.

I think you're being intentionally dense.
I've explained quite clearly. 13st Monday, 12st 11 a week later doesn't tell you you've lost 3lbs unless you know both are equivalent weigh-ins. If you do it your way, you don't know this. I could loose 3lbs in 24hrs by not eating or drinking much but it's not really body muscle or fat loss, it's body contents loss. As soon as I have a meal and a drink enough I'll be back where I was 24hrs before.
These variations take place continually to greater or lesser extent. Take them into account by taking more frequent measurements and you can get much more useful and understandable information. If you do it your way, well, sure you'll have values and you can take them at face value if you like, but you're fooling yourself if you think it's as simple as 3lbs means 3lbs.

NeXXus

Ai_1 wrote:

NeXXus wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

This seems pretty obvious to me so I'm not certain if I'm missing your point, you're missing mine, or you're trolling. If as you say above, I get a measurement 3lbs higher on Tuesday than Monday and I only take one measurement in the week then my understanding of what's going on with my weight is massively dependent on which day I weigh myself. Maybe I weigh on Monday and think I lost 2lbs compared to the previous weeks measurement. Maybe I weigh on Tuesday and think I've gained 1lb. Without measuring on both days I don't know there are big fluctuations drowning out the signal so I assume the 2 readings (1 last week, 1 this week) tell me everything I need to know. In fact they don't even tell me if I'm losing or gaining weight.
Agreed? If not, why?

13st dead Monday, 12st 11 seven days later. Doesn't need to be complicated than that. What happened tues/wed/thurs/friday/sat/sun is irrelevant, you've lost 3lb in that week.

More measurements don't "create" noise. They reveal it.

Again, there is absolutely no need.

I think you're being intentionally dense.
I've explained quite clearly. 13st Monday, 12st 11 a week later doesn't tell you you've lost 3lbs unless you know both are equivalent weigh-ins. If you do it your way, you don't know this. I could loose 3lbs in 24hrs by not eating or drinking much but it's not really body muscle or fat loss, it's body contents loss. As soon as I have a meal and a drink enough I'll be back where I was 24hrs before.
These variations take place continually to greater or lesser extent. Take them into account by taking more frequent measurements and you can get much more useful and understandable information. If you do it your way, well, sure you'll have values and you can take them at face value if you like, but you're fooling yourself if you think it's as simple as 3lbs means 3lbs.

You really are just posting nonsense.

ai_1

NeXXus wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

NeXXus wrote:

Ai_1 wrote:

This seems pretty obvious to me so I'm not certain if I'm missing your point, you're missing mine, or you're trolling. If as you say above, I get a measurement 3lbs higher on Tuesday than Monday and I only take one measurement in the week then my understanding of what's going on with my weight is massively dependent on which day I weigh myself. Maybe I weigh on Monday and think I lost 2lbs compared to the previous weeks measurement. Maybe I weigh on Tuesday and think I've gained 1lb. Without measuring on both days I don't know there are big fluctuations drowning out the signal so I assume the 2 readings (1 last week, 1 this week) tell me everything I need to know. In fact they don't even tell me if I'm losing or gaining weight.
Agreed? If not, why?

13st dead Monday, 12st 11 seven days later. Doesn't need to be complicated than that. What happened tues/wed/thurs/friday/sat/sun is irrelevant, you've lost 3lb in that week.

More measurements don't "create" noise. They reveal it.

Again, there is absolutely no need.

I think you're being intentionally dense.
I've explained quite clearly. 13st Monday, 12st 11 a week later doesn't tell you you've lost 3lbs unless you know both are equivalent weigh-ins. If you do it your way, you don't know this. I could loose 3lbs in 24hrs by not eating or drinking much but it's not really body muscle or fat loss, it's body contents loss. As soon as I have a meal and a drink enough I'll be back where I was 24hrs before.
These variations take place continually to greater or lesser extent. Take them into account by taking more frequent measurements and you can get much more useful and understandable information. If you do it your way, well, sure you'll have values and you can take them at face value if you like, but you're fooling yourself if you think it's as simple as 3lbs means 3lbs.

You really are just posting nonsense.

Yes, I'm an idiot. Apologies. I'll go away now. :roll:

sloppyschleckonds

Slowmart wrote:

mpatts wrote:

Calorie intake is quite a personal thing. I'm 64kg and I fit that my 'resting' calorie useage is about 1500 calories a day. This is rather unscientific in that this is the intake I can have without loosing or putting on weight.

As for ride data, I've recently switched to a power meter which ie measuring calories much more accurately and found everything else hopelessly over estimated calorie useage.

I'm 20lbs over my ideal weight and appreciate calorie consumption and expenditure are specific and while I use my garmin as a measure for expenditure is there any other accurate way of measuring calorie usage other than a power meter which i can't stretch to?


Failing that i don't find the 1200 cal intake that hard to stick to and I don't get hungry but the weight isn't dropping off so I'm questioning my tactics. My rides are sporadic and may come in bursts, i.e. last week three days back to back with decreasing intensity due to being unfit....

Any advice on the above questions would be gratefully received.

20lbs is a lot to shift, as someone else has said may be aim for 1lb a week aiming for a deficit of 500 calories a day/ 3500 calories a week.

If you use a HRM there are better zones for making the most of using fat as an energy source, but cycling in these zones could end up being pretty dull rides.

markhewitt1978

Ai_1 wrote:

Yes, I'm an idiot. Apologies. I'll go away now. :roll:

It's an easy way to 'win' a debate isn't it, just say it's nonsense and give no reason.

Fundamental laws of physics? They're nonsense! Well that's me convinced...

markhewitt1978

SloppySchleckonds wrote:

If you use a HRM there are better zones for making the most of using fat as an energy source, but cycling in these zones could end up being pretty dull rides.

Even then that only really applies if you're doing reasonable length rides. That you want to keep your heart rate in the 'fat burning zone' where the body utilises a greater proportion of fat as fuel.

However it's been shown that if you don't have time for a long ride, it's better just to go flat out as hard as you can. The reasoning being that even though when you're going at high intensity you're using less fat as a proportion of the total, because the total is so much bigger it actually burns more fat.