BNA losers club - 2015

Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
CKinnard
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby CKinnard » Wed May 06, 2015 11:22 am

I think commuter cyclists would be leaner. On the weekend up my way, esp after 8am, cyclist BMI definitely gets higher!
For you nobody, yes the bodyfat % estimate will more accurate.
And I place no faith in bioelectrical impedance floor scales in measuring bodyfat %.
They are really a consumerist gimmick.

The accurate way of measuring bodyfat % is to lay down supine with 3 leads on 3 limbs. Hydration status and time of day and prior activity has to be all tightly controlled. You should be able to find a few open source studies on it if you dig around the net.

am50em
Posts: 1526
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:21 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby am50em » Wed May 06, 2015 11:32 am

Following up Nobodys suggestion:
(Updated with BMI and modified BMI using exponent 2.3 which is what population studies suggest is a better value.)

Code: Select all

   Age: 50-55                 
Weight: 98 kg            Goal weight: 90 kg        
Height: 195 cm          Start weight: 118 kg (2010)
 C-W-H: 109-96-107 cm           Diet: Reasonably balanced.
 WHtR = 0.492              Weekly Av: 200 km / 10 hrs / 3000m (110-140 km hard, remainder slow commuting)
  WHR = 0.897              Other act: 4 hrs (karate/pilates)
  BMI = 25.8              BMI (2.3) = 21.1 (Weight / Height^2.3)

         Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec
  2015:  99.5 98.7 98.7 97.7 97.7
Last edited by am50em on Wed May 06, 2015 4:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby Nobody » Wed May 06, 2015 12:38 pm

am50em wrote:Following up Nobodys suggestion:
Thanks am50em. :)

Following your lead:

Code: Select all

Age: 47                                  
Weight: 62 kg                         Goal weight: < 69 kg        
Height: 173 cm                        Start weight: 82 kg (Oct 2013)
C-W-H:  98 - 73.5 - 89.5 cm           Diet: Strict vegetarian. (WFPB)
WHtR =  0.425                         Weekly Av: < 100 km / < 4 hrs (All reasonably fast paced)
WHpR =  0.821                         Other act: < 2 hrs (body weight training / stretching )
BMI  =  20.7                          
         Jan   Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun  Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
  2015:  64.5                    62
I added BMI. I don't believe it's the best measure, but in the interest of adding all relevant data. I won't add body fat percentage as CK says it's going to be inaccurate for many people.
Last edited by Nobody on Wed May 06, 2015 8:19 pm, edited 5 times in total.

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby casual_cyclist » Wed May 06, 2015 1:28 pm

Nobody wrote:BMI = 20.7
You are right, BMI is really misleading. I was just going to throw out there... is there a safe lower limit to BMI?

The reason I ask is that I recall reading some research indicating that risk factors increase at low BMIs.

A quick google search indicates that "low" BMI is under 18.5, so according to that you are well within the healthy range.

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv ... mass_index_(bmi" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

There is funny aspect to that, which is that low body weight (BMI <18.5) carries an increased risk of Iron-deficiency anemia. I don't think you are at any risk of that! :mrgreen:

http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/health- ... -5687.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Besides that, we know waist circumference is a more accurage predictor of risk and you are in the lowest quintile for that, putting you well within the lowest risk category.

http://www.cutthewaist.com/importance.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That article again hightlights the need for us to drop BMI as a health measure.
Waist circumference was related to mortality even within the standard BMI categories. For men the relative risk of mortality rose 16% (within the normal BMI category) ... with every 10cm increase in waist circumference.
We need to stop telling people with "normal" BMI they are in a healthy weight range unless their waist circumference is also in the healthy range.
<removed by request>

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby Nobody » Wed May 06, 2015 7:38 pm

casual_cyclist wrote:You are right, BMI is really misleading. I was just going to throw out there... is there a safe lower limit to BMI?
As you say, there are risks at running below 18.5, but this problem is going to be so rare in AU that it's probably not even worth worrying about. Getting below 20 would probably only be something a woman is likely to do in AU. Some pros get to 19, but they certainly look scary thin when they get there.
casual_cyclist wrote:Besides that, we know waist circumference is a more accurate predictor of risk and you are in the lowest quintile for that, putting you well within the lowest risk category.
Even for a woman. Which should be a concern to the other more than 80% of women in the studies, in the 66 countries that have a waist bigger than a man's. Even if he is 5cm shorter than average. :o
casual_cyclist wrote:http://www.cutthewaist.com/importance.html

That article again hightlights the need for us to drop BMI as a health measure.
Waist circumference was related to mortality even within the standard BMI categories. For men the relative risk of mortality rose 16% (within the normal BMI category) ... with every 10cm increase in waist circumference.
We need to stop telling people with "normal" BMI they are in a healthy weight range unless their waist circumference is also in the healthy range.
Agree and interesting article. The medical industry should update their standards to prevent more people having to suffer health problems while being under the BMI radar. While they're at it they could lower their total cholesterol radar down to 3.9 mmol/L. But that would probably only mean more statin medication being sold rather than much more in lifestyle changes. :|

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby casual_cyclist » Wed May 06, 2015 8:33 pm

Nobody wrote:The medical industry should update their standards to prevent more people having to suffer health problems while being under the BMI radar. While they're at it they could lower their total cholesterol radar down to 3.9 mmol/L. But that would probably only mean more statin medication being sold rather than much more in lifestyle changes. :|
Yeah, reducing cholesterol with statins is not very helpful. The lifestyle changes are helpful and more important but how many medical professionals are equipped to properly advise on proper nutrition?
<removed by request>

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby Nobody » Wed May 06, 2015 9:01 pm

casual_cyclist wrote:Yeah, reducing cholesterol with statins is not very helpful. The lifestyle changes are helpful and more important but how many medical professionals are equipped to properly advise on proper nutrition?
They refer you to a specialist for many conditions, but not to a nutritional professional like CK for a nutrition education problem. The system needs changing, but this is probably a subject for the other thread.

User avatar
singlespeedscott
Posts: 5510
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: Elimbah, Queensland

BNA losers club - 2015

Postby singlespeedscott » Sat May 09, 2015 4:37 pm

31/12/14 - 79kg & 22.5% body fat;

08/01/15 - 78kg & 22.2% body fat;

17/01/15 - 78.3kg & 22.3% body fat;

23/01/15 - 78kg & 22.2%fat;

01/02/15 - 78kg & 22.2% fat;

08/02/15 - 77.5kg, 22.0% fat.

15/02/13 - 75.8kg & 21.4% fat

26/02/15 - 77.2kg & 21.9% fat

05/03/15 - 76.8kg & 21.8% fat

13/03/15 - 76.8kg & 21.8% fat

23/03/15 - 77.9kg & 22.1% fat

30/03/15 - 76.2 & 21.5% fat

06/04/15 - 77.6 & 22.0% fat

17/04/15 - 77.1 & 21.9% fat

22/04/15 - 76.2kg & 21.5 % fat

03/05/15 - 75.2kg;

09/05/15 - 75.8kg after a very stressful week.
Image

User avatar
matagi
Posts: 303
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:52 am
Location: In a parallel universe

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby matagi » Sun May 10, 2015 9:18 am

04/01/2015 73.2 kg
09/05/2015 70.0 kg

Aiming for 66-67kg

Like Barefoot (I think it was), I weigh daily and graph the result then look at the "line of best fit", which is trending downwards. The day to day variation can be quite substantial, biggest I've seen is 1.5kg.

CKinnard
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby CKinnard » Sun May 10, 2015 10:54 am

matagi wrote:Like Barefoot (I think it was), I weigh daily and graph the result then look at the "line of best fit", which is trending downwards. The day to day variation can be quite substantial, biggest I've seen is 1.5kg.
A straight "Line of best fit" will mask a slowing wt loss rate, A moving average better images short and medium term trends.
With weight loss what counts most is the recent trend. There's several well known phases on a wt loss journey where people ease off, and moving averages are better at identifying these.
The moving average will also image a reactive spike in weight such as after a bigger weekend in the saddle. This will provide insight into how much volume one can do before over-stimulating appetite.

The power of going onto a portion controlled Calorie specific diet is that the weight will come up very predictably, while you comply.
But for whatever reason, many people prefer to guess their Calorie intake from day to day.

The chart below from a google sheet, has a red line representing the 5 day moving average.

Image

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby casual_cyclist » Tue May 12, 2015 12:01 am

CKinnard wrote:The power of going onto a portion controlled Calorie specific diet is that the weight will come up very predictably, while you comply.
But for whatever reason, many people prefer to guess their Calorie intake from day to day.
That's an odd statement. I lost close to 40 kg without counting a single calorie. The "whatever reason" is that why make the effort to count calories when I can portion control without counting calories? Both have the same result but one is less work. Of course for people who can't portion control without counting calories, calorie counting is necessary.
<removed by request>

User avatar
toolonglegs
Posts: 15463
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby toolonglegs » Tue May 12, 2015 1:13 am

Calorie counting ... yeah right :|

01/01 101 kgs
20/01 102.5 kgs
07/02 102.5 kgs
23/02 102.5 kgs
28/03 102.5 kgs
04/05 99.9 kgs
11/05 101.5 kgs

CKinnard
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby CKinnard » Tue May 12, 2015 2:03 am

casual_cyclist wrote:
CKinnard wrote:The power of going onto a portion controlled Calorie specific diet is that the weight will come up very predictably, while you comply.
But for whatever reason, many people prefer to guess their Calorie intake from day to day.
That's an odd statement. I lost close to 40 kg without counting a single calorie. The "whatever reason" is that why make the effort to count calories when I can portion control without counting calories? Both have the same result but one is less work. Of course for people who can't portion control without counting calories, calorie counting is necessary.
Did I say to count Calories?
How did you learn what portion sizes/number to take?
Consider the two options below

1. One can simply use 1/2 cup of dry oats to make porridge for brekky most mornings...knowing that equals 200 Cals with milk added.

2. Mindlessly recalculate every morning that you want a porridge meal of 200 Calories...calculate that equals 40g dry oats plus x mls of milk, then mindlessly enter the grams of oats and mls of milk into MyFitnessPal....every day.

Now which do you think I would recommend?

Good dietitians and myself teach quite specific portions (as Cups or grams) required for each meal to achieve a desired Calorie intake.
After a few weeks on such a diet, most motivated people can eyeball the right volume of food required to generate the desired Calorie deficit

i.e. if I tell someone a lunch option is 100g of meat and 4 cups of salad, there's no Calorie counting. and after a few weeks they don't even have to weigh the meat because they visually recognize how big a piece 100g is.

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby Nobody » Tue May 12, 2015 8:46 am

I think CC is saying that if choosing the correct food, some people can intuitively eat and still lose weight. I found that to be the case. However I agree that portion control is easier than calorie counting. Although, as you know, calorie counting or doing a spreadsheet can be enlightening if you are looking to tune the specifics of your diet.

User avatar
singlespeedscott
Posts: 5510
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: Elimbah, Queensland

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby singlespeedscott » Sat May 16, 2015 12:01 pm

31/12/14 - 79kg

01/02/15 - 78kg

05/03/15 - 76.8kg

30/03/15 - 76.6kg

03/05/15 - 75.2kg;

09/05/15 - 75.8kg;

16/05/15 - 75.8kg after I just woke up from night shift.
Image

CKinnard
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 10:23 am

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby CKinnard » Sat May 16, 2015 3:55 pm

Nobody wrote:I think CC is saying that if choosing the correct food, some people can intuitively eat and still lose weight. I found that to be the case. However I agree that portion control is easier than calorie counting. Although, as you know, calorie counting or doing a spreadsheet can be enlightening if you are looking to tune the specifics of your diet.
Anyone who can intuitively eat correct portions of correct food, won't have a weight problem :)

The more common problem is that most people, even when eating the right foods, eat them in the wrong portions and ratio. i.e. very very few people eat the recommended minimum 5 cups of fibrous carbohydrates per day. Anything one eats in place of fibrous carbs, has much more energy density. i.e. 1 cup of vegetables = 25 Calories. 1 cup of cooked rice = 200 Calories. Hence why being vegetarian or vegan does not automatically confer healthy bodyfat % for the majority.

Nobody
Posts: 10316
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby Nobody » Sat May 16, 2015 11:02 pm

CK, I've replied to your post with this post in the diet thread.

User avatar
singlespeedscott
Posts: 5510
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: Elimbah, Queensland

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby singlespeedscott » Sun May 24, 2015 7:01 am

31/12/14 - 79kg

01/02/15 - 78kg

05/03/15 - 76.8kg

30/03/15 - 76.6kg

03/05/15 - 75.2kg;

09/05/15 - 75.8kg;

16/05/15 - 75.8kg

24/05/15 - 78.1 - I haven't ridden for 10 days due to a dodgy back. I didn't think I would blow out that much :?
Image

User avatar
toolonglegs
Posts: 15463
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby toolonglegs » Wed May 27, 2015 7:01 pm

01/01 101 kgs
20/01 102.5 kgs
07/02 102.5 kgs
23/02 102.5 kgs
28/03 102.5 kgs
04/05 99.9 kgs
11/05 101.5 kgs
27/05 100.5 kgs

injured my sitbone area somehow... going to a quiet couple of weeks :|

TheWall
Posts: 812
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:51 pm

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby TheWall » Wed May 27, 2015 10:37 pm

TheWall wrote:June 14 116.8kg...

2015:
5/1 104kg

5/2 99.7kg

2/3 98.9kg

17/4 96.6kg...

Just passed the 20kg mark :-)

In the middle of a month where i have committed to four 100+klm rides. Should go to bed. It is an early start tomorrow.
26/5 95.8kg. Upped the cycling but weight loss slowing but fitness and ability to handle bigger kms is getting better. Cracked the 160klm at Noosa last week

Realised that I have lost the equivalent weight of my 4yo old lad (21kg). And h feels bloody heavy. [emoji1]

Calvin27
Posts: 2435
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby Calvin27 » Wed May 27, 2015 10:57 pm

Random question, but does anyone give a crap about upper body here?

Just curious because I've gone from 85.5kg to 79kg (182cm) and smashing all my cycling records. With winter, I've been a bit slack with riding which means it eats into my gym days. I've noticed some reduction in upper body strength, but not sure if this mean muscle loss or just muscles not being used to a regular gym routine (about once a fortnight). I'm about 17% body fat measure from a doggey caliper diy. Not sure if it's worth maintaining the big miles and letting it continue to drop or to put some pressure on the upper body?

Advice? I'm not keen on the cycling body with huge legs and skinny arms. My legs are already big and arms are nto scrawny but on the smaller side. Problem is I can't cycle half as well as my cycling physique looks!
Heavy road bike
Cushy dirt bike
Very cushy dirt bike
Bike crushed by car (RIP)
No brakes bike
Ebike

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby casual_cyclist » Thu May 28, 2015 2:22 pm

Calvin27 wrote:Random question, but does anyone give a crap about upper body here?
I do. I do body weight upper body exercises and also upper body freeweights twice a week. The reason is that 10 weeks ago I did a fitness test and could not manage one pushup or one pullup. Pretty poor. Anyway, I'm working on it now.
<removed by request>

User avatar
singlespeedscott
Posts: 5510
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: Elimbah, Queensland

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby singlespeedscott » Thu May 28, 2015 4:20 pm

I dont do weights, haven't been to a gym in 15 years, but I still do the same core exercises 3 times a week. Enough to still maintain an A pass in for my old army BFA :lol: - I do 1 set of each with out stopping. It takes all of 8-9 minutes -

20 chinups;
60 pushups;
120 situps;
60 second left and right side plank;
60second plank; and
60 back extensions.

Thats it. Anymore and it becomes a chore and it's all done easily at home for free. For cycling this is all i need. I dont suffer back aches from riding and have no issues moving 20 kg horse feed bags at home or 200 litre drums of oil at work. I wouldn't say I'm "ripped" or anything stupid like that but you can see my 6 pack and I have a defined chest, arms and back.
Image

Calvin27
Posts: 2435
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2013 5:45 pm

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby Calvin27 » Thu May 28, 2015 4:52 pm

singlespeedscott wrote: Thats it. Anymore and it becomes a chore and it's all done easily at home for free. For cycling this is all i need. I dont suffer back aches from riding and have no issues moving 20 kg horse feed bags at home or 200 litre drums of oil at work. I wouldn't say I'm "ripped" or anything stupid like that but you can see my 6 pack and I have a defined chest, arms and back.
Yeah i hate the gym subscription models and even worse hate being there. I run a similar setup bar the chin ups (no where to do them) but struggle because I awlays tend to skip them. Occasionally I feel the need to push some heavy low reps stuff too. Thing is there is no way I can keep the strength without at least some harder gym sessions and I am not that strong anyway (bench 5x8x70kg dumbell, deadlift 5x10x80kg, 40 pullups unweighted)
Heavy road bike
Cushy dirt bike
Very cushy dirt bike
Bike crushed by car (RIP)
No brakes bike
Ebike

User avatar
casual_cyclist
Posts: 7758
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:41 am
Location: Kewdale

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby casual_cyclist » Thu May 28, 2015 6:16 pm

singlespeedscott wrote:I dont do weights, haven't been to a gym in 15 years...
Me either. I went to a gym once to do a free spin class. That's it for me.
singlespeedscott wrote:Anymore and it becomes a chore and it's all done easily at home for free.
I work out easily at home for free too. If I want to ride, I ride a bike. If I want to run, I run around my local park. If I want to do body weight, I do it at home. If I want to lift weights, I use the weights I have at home. I have never understood people who pay money to ride a stationary bike, run on a treadmill, do body weight exercises in a gym or pay to lift weights.

I like your routine. I would like to build up to be able to do that.
<removed by request>

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users