Weightloss
Comments
-
My experience with Garmin HR based calorie estimates is that they're garbage (when compared to calorie estimates from a power meter based on kJ). I get a more realistic figure from an Edge 800 (when not using a power meter) when the guesstimate is without HR.More problems but still living....0
-
amaferanga wrote:My experience with Garmin HR based calorie estimates is that they're garbage (when compared to calorie estimates from a power meter based on kJ). I get a more realistic figure from an Edge 800 (when not using a power meter) when the guesstimate is without HR.
Horses for courses... It's not going to work for everyone. AIUI the Firstbeat thing "learns" you over the course of many rides so you need to firstly make sure it's set up right and secondly use it for a little while to get it to be accurate, I guess if you're just using it occasionally it might not work as well (?).
Obviously most of us don't have power meters either.
I have found the calcs from the Garmin a lot more intuitive based on how hard the ride felt and they also give me some comparison between turbo rides and real rides (in the absence of a power meter). I also just got back from 6 weeks off the bike (ski holiday followed by work trips) and found the Garmin calcs picked up that I was having to work harder for the same speeds on the same routes due to loss of fitness, which I thought was pretty cool. The Strava calcs didn't change.
Ultimately I guess it doesn't really matter what you use so long as the end goal of losing weight is achieved - at the moment OP seems to be having some issues with what he's currently using so could be worth having a go with something else.0 -
My 800 was more pesimistic than my 1000, my only conclusion is sensitivity to the transmitter resulting in a little jumping and spiking. My 800 occasionally used to spike a bit.
On a spin bike, I'm normally aiming for zone 3.5 - 3.7 avg (inc warmup) and 450 calories within 40 mins. On the road, I tend to get higher for a feeling of less work. I put this down to better cooling.
On the diet front - a kg per week is doable. Alternate day fasting @25%RDA would do it. You'd need to make sure you didn't go too long without food though and would probably need to do some strength training to avoid muscle burn.0 -
Ai_1 wrote:
That's about 1kg per week. I'm not speaking from a position of any particular expertise but that seems excessive to me. Others may disagree. I think 1kg per fortnight is probably a healthier and more sustainable rate of loss. Is there a reason it needs to be lost by July or could you give yourself until the end of summer?ilav84 wrote:BM for some reading!
Currently 91 kgs. Want to be down to 82 by July.
I'm aiming for a pound a week over a 4 month period because I feel it's achievable. Initial loss appeared more, but a couple of business trips got me back on track!
I think trying to shift a kilo a week will be quite difficult / harder to sustain, and failing to hit an unrealistsic target could be demotivating...0 -
keef66 wrote:I think trying to shift a kilo a week will be quite difficult / harder to sustain, and failing to hit an unrealistsic target could be demotivating...
Agree with this, if it were that easy why bother training all year round. Just do a few weeks when the sun comes out and hey presto, watts per kilogram in the 4+ range
It's a shame the 'Raisins' thread has disappeared.I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0 -
SloppySchleckonds wrote:keef66 wrote:I think trying to shift a kilo a week will be quite difficult / harder to sustain, and failing to hit an unrealistsic target could be demotivating...
Agree with this, if it were that easy why bother training all year round. Just do a few weeks when the sun comes out and hey presto, watts per kilogram in the 4+ range
It's a shame the 'Raisins' thread has disappeared.
I loved that thread! All the photos of his hairy feet on the bathroom scales and the discarded junk food packaging on the passenger seat. Serious eating disorder or top trolling; never could quite make up my mind...0 -
Ok maybe getting down to 82 is unrealistic. I am 6ft and 90kgs today though! I would love to lose a stone before La Marmotte in early July. Getting up the climbs should be a little easier with a stone off!0
-
Its not unrealistic and its within generally accepted guidelines for weight loss. You've got no chance through exercise alone though. You'd be adding about 8 hours training a week to do that.0
-
1200 calories a day ???? I am a 52kg woman and I eat WAY more than that - don't calorie count so can't be sure, but would bet a large amount of money it is over 3000 calories a day.
I do lots of different types of exercise, and I feel that that helps keep calorie burn high as my body doesn't get too complacent. Cycling, ski mountaineering, climbing, running (don't tell my knee surgeon), circuit training, and in the summer kayaking and canyonning.
When I just cycle - the weight goes up a wee bit, mix it up a bit, drops off again.
I'm lucky - I like vegetables, and lots of them. I'm unlucky - I LOVE chocolate, eat a box most nights.
So - eat lots of veg, mix your exercise up, eat enough that you exercise hard.0 -
jaxf wrote:1200 calories a day ???? I am a 52kg woman and I eat WAY more than that - don't calorie count so can't be sure, but would bet a large amount of money it is over 3000 calories a day.
I do lots of different types of exercise, and I feel that that helps keep calorie burn high as my body doesn't get too complacent. Cycling, ski mountaineering, climbing, running (don't tell my knee surgeon), circuit training, and in the summer kayaking and canyonning.
When I just cycle - the weight goes up a wee bit, mix it up a bit, drops off again.
I'm lucky - I like vegetables, and lots of them. I'm unlucky - I LOVE chocolate, eat a box most nights.
So - eat lots of veg, mix your exercise up, eat enough that you exercise hard.
I guess the problem with cutting to 1200 calories a day would be that you would lose weight, but not necessarily fat. You could also deplete your immune system and get ill. Would your body also try and store as many calories as possible as it was getting so little? And as most people know, all calories aren't equal. Always useful to keep a food diary
I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0 -
I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles0
-
SloppySchleckonds wrote:I guess the problem with cutting to 1200 calories a day would be that you would lose weight, but not necessarily fat. You could also deplete your immune system and get ill. Would your body also try and store as many calories as possible as it was getting so little? And as most people know, all calories aren't equal. Always useful to keep a food diary
If your body needs X and you consume X-Y its going to get Y from fat. There are only two normal scenarios where this is not the case. 1) You have very low body fat to start with, 2) you have been starving yourself long term (e.g. several days) - in this scenario it burns muscle too.
Some foods are less easy to digest than others
Your metabolism will slow as a result of eating less food, but this is really due the fact that its increases post feed to get the blood to the stomach to get the nutrients out.
Training in the fat burning zone - does not mean you will burn more fat overall it just means you'll burn more fat as a percentage compared to glucose/glycogen, which will be restored post workout, through the consumption of fat (in the absence of food).0 -
DIY, most dieters loose almost as much lean body mass as fat mass, the body isn't a perfect system and won't expend it's fat reserves before touching the muscle - in the same way that your or I would run down our current account before building an overdraft.
Weight loss greater than 1 or 2 lb per week is thought to be a risk factor in loosing predominantly muscle.
Your body can only break down fat up to a certain rate, training exceeds this by a greater or lesser margin so the shortfall comes from gylcogen. If there's none left there's a danger it will take from burning surplus muscle, which is a quicker way to release energy than breaking down chemically unreactive, insoluble, deoxygenated, non-polar lipid molecules.
You really need to get a power meter fitted, as do I !0 -
RutlandGav wrote:DIY, most dieters loose almost as much lean body mass as fat mass
In the above examples - they are all after about 1kg a week which is within the current guidance. They also have BMI's well above 20, so providing they keep their protein intake up there is little chance of what you are suggesting.
If you are on the lean side, looking to do endurance rides and drop kg or go long term fasting - I'd agree.0 -
"most dieters loose almost as much lean body mass as fat mass, the body isn't a perfect system and won't expend it's fat reserves before touching the muscle"
You sure about that?? Is there any proper research that suggests this is the case?
I've lost a stone since Christmas, and I don't feel I've lost any muscle. I didn't have that much to start with; I think I'd have noticed if I'd lost 7 pounds of muscle.
Michael Mosely, the 5:2 diet chap, lost even more weight, and he had the benefit of before and after MRI scans. They showed nearly all of his loss was fat.
I believe our fat storage system evolved at a time when food supply was sporadic, so we'd put on weight in times of plenty, and burn it off during famine periods. Makes no sense to do the same with muscle tissue. If we overeat we don't put on muscle, the excess calories are stored as fat.
As long as you're not trying to lose too much weight too quickly and you're eating a balanced diet, I believe virtually all weight lost is fat and associated water.0 -
There is quite a lot of research to suggest that even top bodybuilders can't use more than around 0.8g protein per 1lb of lean muscle mass per day. For a person of 5'8 @ 72.5kg (normal weight) thats around 400cal (100g) of protein per day. So its entirely possible even for a body builder to cover their protein needs on a 5:2 diet.
My calculations(1) for a normal (non-athlete) person going from an overweight(2) 82kg (same height as above) to good 72kg is that they would lose no more than 5% LMM and 12% fat.
Even using a model of 110kg to 90kg - we have less LMM lost.
Its only when the fat isn't there to lose that you burn LMM, though body builders still manage to hold on to it when "cutting" with BF% as low as 6%
1) Using James forumla (but Hume and Boer, give similar results)
2) based on BMI0 -
I don't trust that research on the basis that they are mixing units of measure and therefore can't be real scientists or technically competent.diy wrote:There is quite a lot of research to suggest that even top bodybuilders can't use more than around 0.8g protein per 1lb of lean muscle mass per day. For a person of 5'8 @ 72.5kg....
Grams per pound? Seriously?
5'8 and 72.5kg? Just no!0 -
To be fair it was me who converted it the "English" convention of weight in kg and height in feet and inches. I've only recently moved from stone and lbs to kg. It'll be a few years before I convert height to cm. Can imagine the look I'd get walking in to a merc dealer and asking for the 430kw model.
Personally I go with the unit that makes the maths easier. 1g protein per lb of LMM is often a guide touted by body builders, though recent evidence suggest they don't need it.0 -
Bad diy!diy wrote:To be fair it was me who converted it the "English" convention of weight in kg and height in feet and inches. I've only recently moved from stone and lbs to kg. It'll be a few years before I convert height to cm. Can imagine the look I'd get walking in to a merc dealer and asking for the 430kw model.
Personally I go with the unit that makes the maths easier. 1g protein per lb of LMM is often a guide touted by body builders, though recent evidence suggest they don't need it.
Metric ALWAYS makes the maths easier! 0 -
Unless you are buying building materials - and then board in 8' x 4' by 1/2 inch is easier than 2220 x 4440 x 12.50
-
I think you'll find that should be 2438mm x 1219mm x 12.7mmdiy wrote:Unless you are buying building materials - and then board in 8' x 4' by 1/2 inch is easier than 2220 x 4440 x 12.5
Of course it's only clumsy because it's a conversion from a standard size originating in feet and inches. If it was 2.5m x 1.25m x 12.5mm it would just as easy.0 -
The whole metric / imperial thing is a pain. I can't just say I lost a stone, I also have to say I lost 6kg, I lost 14lb.0
-
It's only a pain because some people use one and some use the other.markhewitt1978 wrote:The whole metric / imperial thing is a pain. I can't just say I lost a stone, I also have to say I lost 6kg, I lost 14lb.
I once was more accustomed to imperial but have long since switched completely to metric for everything I do. I can still think in either but I massively prefer metric. It's much cleaner, and more consistent with no ambiguity which is exactly what units of measure should be.
Metric is simple. Mass is measured in grams, distance is measured in metres. For bigger or smaller scales you can just switch to kilograms or milligrams, kilometers, millimeters. And all other metric units are used the same way. On the other hand with imperial, 12 inches in a foot, 5280ft in a mile, subdivisions of inches are in either fractions (1/2n) or they're in thousandths of an inch. Whereas weigh is measured in pounds consisting of 16 ounces and 14 of them are a stone, 2000lbs is a short ton but 2240lbs is a long ton. It's even worse when you go to volume with the US and elsewhere having different numbers of fluid ounces in a pint and so on....yuck
However, while I much rather metric to imperial, I do understand that people who spent more of their lives with imperial as the dominant system will be more inclined to stick with it. What drives me nuts is combining the too, which is why I commented on diy's post, although I was mostly kidding, kind of....
Anyway, apologies for going OT0 -
Yup, totally agree. I'd rather just stick to metric. But if I say to my wife or my Mum that I've lost 6kg the reaction would be "well how much is that?".
Weight tracking websites require me to put my weight in in pounds (not even stones) purely because I track my walking and cycling distances in miles.0 -
I bet you hate buying car tyres
or do you ask for a set of 285 / 35 / R457.20 -
For certain things like tyres, and sizes of televisions, then the units are imperial and that's fine. You don't really find TV's measured in cm.
It's when you have things like weight where there's not just one, but three measurement types in common use, that it's a ballache.0 -
I've lost 15lbs in the last 5 weeks mainly by cycling lots and counting calories.
For my target, which is to lose 2lbs per week, I have a calorie budget of 1400 per day. I am using my Garmin with HR monitor to count cycling calories. I am cycling almost every day with long rides at the weekends. Garmin connect says my average ride is 900 cals and the burn rate seems to follow the rule of 10 calories per minute. The Garmin is much more conservative than Strava or other methods I've seen so I go by that.
Strava says I've cycled 70 hours in the month of April which = 42000 calories = 12lb lost in April if we go on 3500 cals per pound, which seems about right given its 15lb in 5 wks.
Interesting that these rules of thumb seem to work!
I find I can eat reasonably normally and keep within the budget because I am burning so much with cycling. 1400 + 900 = 2300, which is not difficult and I am eating plenty of good stuff, but not too worried about exactly what. I'm just trying to keep within the budget. I feel absolutely fine, never ill, not overly tired and my cycling is improving too with all the extra miles.
I am 5'11 with a thin build. I was 13st at the end March and now I am 11.13. I have been as low as 10.13 in 2013 when I was cycling regularly and eating reasonably. I used to do around 30-40 hours in a good month and about 6000-7000mi per year.
I put on weight over the last year because I stopped smoking and started to eat a lot more snacks and other crap (ice cream, chocolate etc.). I also cycled a lot less last winter because I couldn't be bothered with the turbo. When I reach my target weight (11 to 11 and half stone or thereabouts) I'll probably cycle a bit less and eat a bit more but not over do the snacking. I'll also make sure I keep it going over the winter even if it means the dreaded turbo.
So for me, calorie counting and cycling does work and it really just boils down to calories in versus calories out.0 -
bobones wrote:I've lost 15lbs in the last 5 weeks mainly by cycling lots and counting calories.
For my target, which is to lose 2lbs per week, I have a calorie budget of 1400 per day. I am using my Garmin with HR monitor to count cycling calories. I am cycling almost every day with long rides at the weekends. Garmin connect says my average ride is 900 cals and the burn rate seems to follow the rule of 10 calories per minute. The Garmin is much more conservative than Strava or other methods I've seen so I go by that.
Strava says I've cycled 70 hours in the month of April which = 42000 calories = 12lb lost in April if we go on 3500 cals per pound, which seems about right given its 15lb in 5 wks.
Interesting that these rules of thumb seem to work!
I find I can eat reasonably normally and keep within the budget because I am burning so much with cycling. 1400 + 900 = 2300, which is not difficult and I am eating plenty of good stuff, but not too worried about exactly what. I'm just trying to keep within the budget. I feel absolutely fine, never ill, not overly tired and my cycling is improving too with all the extra miles.
I am 5'11 with a thin build. I was 13st at the end March and now I am 11.13. I have been as low as 10.13 in 2013 when I was cycling regularly and eating reasonably. I used to do around 30-40 hours in a good month and about 6000-7000mi per year.
I put on weight over the last year because I stopped smoking and started to eat a lot more snacks and other crap (ice cream, chocolate etc.). I also cycled a lot less last winter because I couldn't be bothered with the turbo. When I reach my target weight (11 to 11 and half stone or thereabouts) I'll probably cycle a bit less and eat a bit more but not over do the snacking. I'll also make sure I keep it going over the winter even if it means the dreaded turbo.
So for me, calorie counting and cycling does work and it really just boils down to calories in versus calories out.
Similar approach i'm using. Trying to eat a weight maintenance # of calories (2500) whilst cycling loads - it's shedding the pounds at a similar rate. I do bonk out on longer rides, and on rest days if i skip meals (basically feel so lightheaded i can't drive safely and too fatigued to get on the bike - if i need a pint of milk, i'll walk to the shops).
Increasing the carbohydrate portion of my diet to 70 or 80% has helped with that, as does making effort to spread the training load throughout the week better.0 -
I don't have a problem with bonking: never have since I started cycling again a few years ago, but I am not sure why that is. I tend to sip a sugary drink (SIS Go powder) while I am riding so maybe that helps. I used to take a Monday off altogether but now I'll just go super easy and still get 450-500 cals burnt. I may go over budget a little on some days, but I usually have a few days where I am well under. It helps that I can get out on the bike most weekday mornings before work for at least an hour and a half and I'll go out even if the weather is pretty rubbish just to get some calories burnt and avoid the turbo.RutlandGav wrote:Similar approach i'm using. Trying to eat a weight maintenance # of calories (2500) whilst cycling loads - it's shedding the pounds at a similar rate. I do bonk out on longer rides, and on rest days if i skip meals (basically feel so lightheaded i can't drive safely and too fatigued to get on the bike - if i need a pint of milk, i'll walk to the shops).
Increasing the carbohydrate portion of my diet to 70 or 80% has helped with that, as does making effort to spread the training load throughout the week better.0
