BNA losers club - 2015

Forum rules
The information / discussion in the Cycling Health Forum is not qualified medical advice. Please consult your doctor.
clydesmcdale
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:43 pm

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby clydesmcdale » Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:50 am

time to update after a month or 2 of not keeping the diet in order and letting it creep up a little. Back on the wagon again and aiming for sub 90 by the end of the month.

198cm - 37yr old
- October 2011 118.9kg

- April 2012 108.7kg
- May 2012 106.2kg
- June 2012 105.5kg
- July 2012 103.8kg
- August 2012 101.7kg
- September 2012 99.9kg
- October 2012 97.6kg
- November 2012 97.3kg
- December 2012 97.3kg

- January 2013 96.3kg
- February 2013 93.6kg
- March 2013 94.1 kg
- April 2013 92.0 kg
- May 2013 93.0 kg
- June 2013 94.5 kg
- July 2013 94.5 kg
- August 2013 93.5 kg
- September 2013 94.2 kg
- October 2013 94.3 kg
- November 2013 94.0 kg
- December 2013 93.5 kg

- January 2014 93.5 kg
- February 2014 95.0 kg
- March 2014 94.5 kg
- April 2014 94.8 kg
- May 2014 95.0 kg
- June 2014 95.2 kg
- July 2014 95.5 kg
- August 2014 96.2 kg
- September 2014 95.9 kg
- October 2014 92.8 kg
- November 2014 91.5 kg
- December 2014 88.5 kg

- January 2015 90.5kg
- February 2015 89.9kg
- March 2015 92.7kg

- April 2015 90.8kg

Goal - maintain sub 90kg for 2015

User avatar
rusty842
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:49 pm

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby rusty842 » Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:11 pm

I'm fitting into next size smaller business shirts however it only says 1kg on the scales. Haven't really done anything radical yet as new job I'm settling in so we will see how it all goes

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 Apr 22, 2015 9:40 pm

rusty842 wrote:I'm fitting into next size smaller business shirts however it only says 1kg on the scales. Haven't really done anything radical yet as new job I'm settling in so we will see how it all goes
Waist measurement helps with that. I am down 2 belt notches at the same weight. I just means you are losing fat, not muscle. Good news!
<removed by request>

User avatar
rusty842
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:49 pm

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby rusty842 » Wed Apr 22, 2015 9:52 pm

casual_cyclist wrote:
rusty842 wrote:I'm fitting into next size smaller business shirts however it only says 1kg on the scales. Haven't really done anything radical yet as new job I'm settling in so we will see how it all goes
Waist measurement helps with that. I am down 2 belt notches at the same weight. I just means you are losing fat, not muscle. Good news!
I know. It's only positive. Belt has gone down a notch. Shirt down a size.

I know over time with making better food changes the number will come down. Aiming for 87 by eofy

User avatar
TonyMax
Posts: 647
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:23 am
Location: Northside Canberra

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby TonyMax » Fri May 01, 2015 7:03 am

My starting point this year:

1/1/15: 90.4kg

1/2/15: 85.8kg
1/3/15: 86.9kg
2/4/15: 91.3kg
1/5/15: 90.5kg

Target 79.9kg.

Some progress made in the right direction again, a reasonably light exercise month and I still have bad eating habits. I'll try to cut out the snacking for May and see where I end up in a month.
Image

User avatar
skull
Posts: 2087
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:48 pm

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby skull » Fri May 01, 2015 1:02 pm

Down down, prices are down.

Happy month weigh in today, not as low as expected but still tracking down and happy with the result.

January: 105.7kg
February: 102.9kg
March: 99.6kg
April: 99.1kg
May: 97.2kg

Kaching.

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

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby Nobody » Fri May 01, 2015 1:15 pm

Weigh in for yesterday:

62.5Kg. BMI 20.9
Not much change. Up, down. Don't expect much more loss then.

Waist:

73.5cm or WHtR 0.425
Down 1cm from last time.


I've found time of day important for measuring my waist as I can be 2cm larger by the afternoon than in the morning.

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

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby CKinnard » Fri May 01, 2015 2:30 pm

Nobody wrote:I've found time of day important for measuring my waist as I can be 2cm larger by the afternoon than in the morning.
yep, you wanna measure waist when you get out of bed, as there's just too much variation
- abdominal muscle tone
- hydration and food/fiber content
- slumpy posture.

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

BNA losers club - 2015

Postby singlespeedscott » Sun May 03, 2015 8:36 am

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 - went for a ride this morning and had one of those I'm feeling light days. Weigh in proved to be right. However I think my scales are on the fritz as it's said I was 29.2% body fat. No way I am that given you can see my six pack.
Image

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

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby Nobody » Sun May 03, 2015 9:01 am

singlespeedscott wrote:03/05/15 - 75.2kg - went for a ride this morning and had one of those I'm feeling light days. Weigh in proved to be right. However I think my scales are on the fritz as it's said I was 29.2% body fat. No way I am that given you can see my six pack.
Good to see the weight still moving in the wanted direction.

My understanding of the body fat percentage scales is that you stand on them with bare feet and it passes a small DC current though your body (micro amps) and measures your resistance. Then it converts this to a body fat percentage. If you were to wet your feet and stand on them, I'd say you'd get the lowest body fat percentage yet, if it was working normally.

As you know, the measuring tape is probably going to tell you more than the scales will.

am50em
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:21 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby am50em » Sun May 03, 2015 9:30 am

End of year goal 90kg
99.5 -> 98.7 -> 98.7 -> 97.7 -> 97.7

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

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby casual_cyclist » Sun May 03, 2015 11:48 am

My weigh in and measure up was yesterday. My results were not as good as I was expecting due to travelling for work. Less activity and more food doesn't help :(

Numbers in square brackets are results from 4 weeks ago.
Waist: 95 cm [97 cm]
WHTR: 0.51 [0.52]
Weight: 94 kg [92.5 kg]

Except weight, moving in the right direction.
<removed by request>

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

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby Nobody » Sun May 03, 2015 7:24 pm

casual_cyclist wrote:
Numbers in square brackets are results from 4 weeks ago.
Waist: 95 cm [97 cm]
WHTR: 0.51 [0.52]
Weight: 94 kg [92.5 kg]

Except weight, moving in the right direction.
Since you weren't looking to lose weight, I would still say they are good results. Doesn't really matter how small for WHTR, as long as it's decreasing.

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 » Mon May 04, 2015 5:57 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

Rightside of 100 for the first time since December :roll:

User avatar
skull
Posts: 2087
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:48 pm

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby skull » Mon May 04, 2015 7:42 pm

toolonglegs wrote:
Rightside of 100 for the first time since December :roll:
Giddy up

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

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby CKinnard » Mon May 04, 2015 7:54 pm

Nobody wrote:If you were to wet your feet and stand on them, I'd say you'd get the lowest body fat percentage yet, if it was working normally.
or measure before and 10 minutes after drinking 1 liter of water!
most resistance to current is in the skin. if you are dehydrated, skin resistance increases dramatically.
drinking a liter increases blood flow to the skin and evaporative water loss. This dramatically decreases skin resistance, and effects bodyfat % readings from dumb consumer scales.

fishwop
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:20 pm
Location: St Marys NSW

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby fishwop » Mon May 04, 2015 11:35 pm

singlespeedscott wrote: However I think my scales are on the fritz as it's said I was 29.2% body fat. No way I am that given you can see my six pack.
Scales that estimate body fat percentage are notorious for overestimating by quite a large margin.

http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This site will give you a more accurate estimate.

clydesmcdale
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 12:43 pm

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby clydesmcdale » Tue May 05, 2015 9:07 am

Get in early for the beginning of the month... trying to put a bit more intensity into my rides, rather than just turn the legs over. Attempting to cut out as much sugar as I can. Having some positive results.

198cm - 37yr old
- October 2011 118.9kg

- April 2012 108.7kg
- May 2012 106.2kg
- June 2012 105.5kg
- July 2012 103.8kg
- August 2012 101.7kg
- September 2012 99.9kg
- October 2012 97.6kg
- November 2012 97.3kg
- December 2012 97.3kg

- January 2013 96.3kg
- February 2013 93.6kg
- March 2013 94.1 kg
- April 2013 92.0 kg
- May 2013 93.0 kg
- June 2013 94.5 kg
- July 2013 94.5 kg
- August 2013 93.5 kg
- September 2013 94.2 kg
- October 2013 94.3 kg
- November 2013 94.0 kg
- December 2013 93.5 kg

- January 2014 93.5 kg
- February 2014 95.0 kg
- March 2014 94.5 kg
- April 2014 94.8 kg
- May 2014 95.0 kg
- June 2014 95.2 kg
- July 2014 95.5 kg
- August 2014 96.2 kg
- September 2014 95.9 kg
- October 2014 92.8 kg
- November 2014 91.5 kg
- December 2014 88.5 kg

- January 2015 90.5kg
- February 2015 89.9kg
- March 2015 92.7kg
- April 2015 90.8kg

- May 2015 89.6kg

Goal - maintain sub 90kg for 2015

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

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby Nobody » Tue May 05, 2015 9:57 am

fishwop wrote:Scales that estimate body fat percentage are notorious for overestimating by quite a large margin.

http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This site will give you a more accurate estimate.
Last time I did this I was 10.6, now 10.1%. I thought it would be lower as my waist has decreased, but so have my neck and hip measurements. Still moving in the right direction though.

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

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby CKinnard » Tue May 05, 2015 7:32 pm

fishwop wrote:http://www.calculator.net/body-fat-calculator.html

This site will give you a more accurate estimate.

Not necessarily. This calculator is based on data collected by the US Navy of its personnel in 1984, when the obesity rate was much lower.
A lower % of obese and overweight subjects within a sample representing a population adds significant variance to the derived linear regression equation that the above site is based on, which incidentally for males is

495/(1.0324-0.19077*(LOG10(waist-neck))+0.15456*(LOG10(height)))-450

am50em
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:21 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby am50em » Tue May 05, 2015 7:56 pm

Nice going but can we please save some screen real estate. After a few more years will only get one comment per page!
e.g.
clydesmcdale should have wrote: Get in early for the beginning of the month... trying to put a bit more intensity into my rides, rather than just turn the legs over. Attempting to cut out as much sugar as I can. Having some positive results.

198cm - 37yr old

Code: Select all

      Jan    Feb   Mar   Apr   May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep   Oct   Nov   Dec
 2011                                                       118.9
 2012                   108.7 106.2 105.5 103.8 101.7  99.9  97.6  97.3  97.3
 2013  96.3  93.6  94.1  92.0  93.0  94.5  94.5  93.5  94.2  94.3  94.0  93.5
 2014  93.5  95.0  94.5  94.8  95.0  95.2  95.5  96.2  95.9  92.8  91.5  88.5
 2015  90.5  89.9  92.7  90.8  89.6
Goal - maintain sub 90kg for 2015

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

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby Nobody » Tue May 05, 2015 8:15 pm

CKinnard wrote:Not necessarily. This calculator is based on data collected by the US Navy of its personnel in 1984, when the obesity rate was much lower.
A lower % of obese and overweight subjects within a sample representing a population adds significant variance to the derived linear regression equation that the above site is based on
So which way would you say the percentage of fat to measurements would go in reality? Lower, higher or just incorrect for the same measurements? Is that because most people using it would be higher these days and so their sample rate of similar people back then in number would be lower? Is that what your saying? I would have thought that most cyclists here would be reasonably similar to Navy personnel in the '80s. Probably not many people on here with a BMI over 28 or a WHTR over 0.55.

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

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby Nobody » Tue May 05, 2015 8:36 pm

am50em wrote:Nice going but can we please save some screen real estate. After a few more years will only get one comment per page!
Fair comment. You probably only need what you were when you started and when, then what you are now.

What I'd like to see is people adding more detail about their height and age as CMD did. Even better would be a waist measurements since BMI is a calculation which disadvantages overly tall and short people.
Height – BMI is not totally independent of height and it tends to overestimate obesity among shorter people and underestimate it among taller people. Therefore, BMI should not be used as a guide for adults who are very short (less than 150 cm) or very tall (more than 190 cm).
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv ... MI%29?open" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Comments like, "Started at 90, now 86, want to get to 78." doesn't really tell anyone else much unless they already know their height. Even then, I know a person taller than me with a lower BMI but has a gut. So clearly waist measurements are better. That's why I put as many relative measurements as I have at the time. That way you'll know why I'm not losing much more.

Edit: I got the example I made earlier around the wrong way according the Vic government website, so just added their explanation of why extreme heights don't work.
Last edited by Nobody on Wed May 06, 2015 8:30 pm, edited 4 times in total.

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

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby CKinnard » Wed May 06, 2015 4:36 am

Nobody wrote:So which way would you say the percentage of fat to measurements would go in reality? Lower, higher or just incorrect for the same measurements? Is that because most people using it would be higher these days and so their sample rate of similar people back then in number would be lower? Is that what your saying? I would have thought that most cyclists here would be reasonably similar to Navy personnel in the '80s. Probably not many people on here with a BMI over 28 or a WHTR over 0.55.
The derived equation is a best fit for the Navy personnel, who would have had a lower variance in bodyfat % for several reasons
- one being they are not a representative sample of the whole US population in 1984. As there is today, I think back then there would have been limitations on BMI for entry into the defense forces, if not for any other reason than heavy people would not be able to complete the physical exams.
- another being they are even less a representative sample of the US population in 2015. There's way more fat people around today.

Their sample would also not be representative for height either. People are getting taller.
Today, there are more younger people into bodybuilding (and taking PEDs). They will have thicker necks.
Many people lead more time pressed and stressful lives these days, and are on the whole more sedentary. This favors the laying down of visceral fat, which increases waist circumference, and less muscular development.

How does this effect the utility of the equation today? For any combination of neck and waist circumference subscribed to height, there will be significantly more variance. This will reduce accuracy of the bodyfat % estimate. I can't say whether it would be under or over predicting in general. Any estimate would just have a higher associated std deviation. TBH, I'd have to model the equation to discover its original form. It may not be linear, but quadratic or cubic with one or all variables. But that would take me an hour or two of number crunching which I am not inclined to do. Non linear associations between the variables mean the equation will have a higher error rate when used today.

As for most cyclists being similar to 1984 navy personnel, you think? The BNA health section and weight loss threads are pretty popular, and there's some big guys here. I think a lot of people take up cycling to manage excess weight. I certainly got back into it for that reason.

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

Re: BNA losers club - 2015

Postby Nobody » Wed May 06, 2015 9:34 am

CKinnard wrote:For any combination of neck and waist circumference subscribed to height, there will be significantly more variance. This will reduce accuracy of the bodyfat % estimate.
So the further you deviate from the norm back then, the less accurate it gets. OK, but it would still have to be significantly better than body fat estimating scales for those who fall within the likely band for 1984 like myself. I'm from the era that would have been in the military in 80s. I could still pass their physical tests too in regard to general aerobic fitness, chin ups and push ups etc (excluding age). So it looks like I'm one of the fewer people in-band still for accuracy.
CKinnard wrote:As for most cyclists being similar to 1984 navy personnel, you think? The BNA health section and weight loss threads are pretty popular, and there's some big guys here. I think a lot of people take up cycling to manage excess weight. I certainly got back into it for that reason.
I'll give you the height, but the average on this thread aside, the average cyclist on the street would be leaner than the average person in the general population IMO. Probably the same, or even more so for joggers.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users