More training for fat loss

[OzCableguy]

Unexpected results over the last 8 weeks. I've reduced calorie intake
substantially, increased water intake, exercise intensity and frequency but
the scales aren't really moving a great deal. A kilo here and there but
nowhere near as much as I was expecting.
Measurement wise, my abdominal girth isn't changing a great deal either, but
still the belt's gone up a notch so I'm not complaining too loudly. Chest
has increased a about the same proportion, but my pinch test has shown quite
a substantial reduction (a decrease of 6% in body fat %). People also
comment that I look different lately, particularly in the face, and I'm
definitely stronger both on the bike and in the gym. Endurance levels don't
seem to be hugely different though.
No doubt about it that I'm definitely getting leaner (muscle is denser and
weighs more than fat etc) but I was under the impression that X x calories =
X body weight, so a reduction in calories should have lead to a
corresponding reduction in weight on the scales. Why is it not so? Is my
body getting more efficient perhaps?

--
www.ozcableguy.com
www.oztechnologies.com

[warrwych[_56_]]

OzCableguy Wrote:
> Unexpected results over the last 8 weeks. I've reduced calorie intake
> substantially, increased water intake, exercise intensity and frequency
> but
> the scales aren't really moving a great deal. A kilo here and there
> but
> nowhere near as much as I was expecting.
> Measurement wise, my abdominal girth isn't changing a great deal
> either, but
> still the belt's gone up a notch so I'm not complaining too loudly.
> Chest
> has increased a about the same proportion, but my pinch test has shown
> quite
> a substantial reduction (a decrease of 6% in body fat %). People also
> comment that I look different lately, particularly in the face, and
> I'm
> definitely stronger both on the bike and in the gym. Endurance levels
> don't
> seem to be hugely different though.
> No doubt about it that I'm definitely getting leaner (muscle is denser
> and
> weighs more than fat etc) but I was under the impression that X x
> calories =
> X body weight, so a reduction in calories should have lead to a
> corresponding reduction in weight on the scales. Why is it not so? Is
> my
> body getting more efficient perhaps?
>
> --
> www.ozcableguy.com
> www.oztechnologies.com

body is getting more efficient (time to change what you are doing to
"shock" the body again) and, well it sounds like you are leaning up and
toning up ie muscling up, so what you're losing in body fat you are
gaining in muscle, which is a very good outcome.

Sounds like you have a lot of positives going on, and are slimming up,
as your belt will vouch. :)


--
warrwych

[Tomasso[_2_]]

"OzCableguy" > wrote in message ...
> Unexpected results over the last 8 weeks. I've reduced calorie intake
> substantially, increased water intake, exercise intensity and frequency but
> the scales aren't really moving a great deal. A kilo here and there but
> nowhere near as much as I was expecting.
> Measurement wise, my abdominal girth isn't changing a great deal either, but
> still the belt's gone up a notch so I'm not complaining too loudly. Chest
> has increased a about the same proportion, but my pinch test has shown quite
> a substantial reduction (a decrease of 6% in body fat %). People also
> comment that I look different lately, particularly in the face, and I'm
> definitely stronger both on the bike and in the gym. Endurance levels don't
> seem to be hugely different though.
> No doubt about it that I'm definitely getting leaner (muscle is denser and
> weighs more than fat etc) but I was under the impression that X x calories =
> X body weight, so a reduction in calories should have lead to a
> corresponding reduction in weight on the scales. Why is it not so? Is my
> body getting more efficient perhaps?

Familiar story. When I start running, I put on maybe 2Kg in the first three
weeks, then slowly lose weight (0.5 to 1 Kg /mo or so). Waistline decreasing
all the time. So in part, I have muscle growth (initial) and some fat loss all the
time.

The other sneaky part is in glycogen storage, which can be 2 Kg. This is
muscle glycogen and liver glycogen. Glycogen store is stored from carbs
AND water. IN a fit runner, enough energy to run about 0.8* a marathon
(before the wall hits). When you get back to exercise, you are telling your
body to get ready to store more glycogen.

For me, 10 or so hours of aerobic (but fairly intense) exercise (above normal)
is about 1 Kg loss (after the first few weeks). Ie, 2 or 3 hours a week = 4 or
5 runs.

So, body fat down, muscle mass up (initially), glycogen store up. First month,
maybe no apparent loss. After that, (depending on your size and diet), 1 Kg or
so a month down. If the gym work has a muscle building component, then muscle
mass up will be ongoing...

A corollary to this. After I go off season and stop running. I keep losing weight
for about three weeks. [Ideally, I would not stop, but there are times when I
don't get the free time to get out there].

T.

[vintage]

"Tomasso" > wrote in message
...
>
> "OzCableguy" > wrote in message
...
> > Unexpected results over the last 8 weeks. I've reduced calorie intake
> > substantially, increased water intake, exercise intensity and frequency
but
> > the scales aren't really moving a great deal. A kilo here and there but
> > nowhere near as much as I was expecting.
> > Measurement wise, my abdominal girth isn't changing a great deal either,
but
> > still the belt's gone up a notch so I'm not complaining too loudly.
Chest
> > has increased a about the same proportion, but my pinch test has shown
quite
> > a substantial reduction (a decrease of 6% in body fat %). People also
> > comment that I look different lately, particularly in the face, and I'm
> > definitely stronger both on the bike and in the gym. Endurance levels
don't
> > seem to be hugely different though.
> > No doubt about it that I'm definitely getting leaner (muscle is denser
and
> > weighs more than fat etc) but I was under the impression that X x
calories =
> > X body weight, so a reduction in calories should have lead to a
> > corresponding reduction in weight on the scales. Why is it not so? Is my
> > body getting more efficient perhaps?
>
> Familiar story. When I start running, I put on maybe 2Kg in the first
three
> weeks, then slowly lose weight (0.5 to 1 Kg /mo or so). Waistline
decreasing
> all the time. So in part, I have muscle growth (initial) and some fat loss
all the
> time.
>
> The other sneaky part is in glycogen storage, which can be 2 Kg. This is
> muscle glycogen and liver glycogen. Glycogen store is stored from carbs
> AND water. IN a fit runner, enough energy to run about 0.8* a marathon
> (before the wall hits). When you get back to exercise, you are telling
your
> body to get ready to store more glycogen.
>
> For me, 10 or so hours of aerobic (but fairly intense) exercise (above
normal)
> is about 1 Kg loss (after the first few weeks). Ie, 2 or 3 hours a week =
4 or
> 5 runs.
>
> So, body fat down, muscle mass up (initially), glycogen store up. First
month,
> maybe no apparent loss. After that, (depending on your size and diet), 1
Kg or
> so a month down. If the gym work has a muscle building component, then
muscle
> mass up will be ongoing...
>
> A corollary to this. After I go off season and stop running. I keep losing
weight
> for about three weeks. [Ideally, I would not stop, but there are times
when I
> don't get the free time to get out there].
>
> T.

Or just throw out your scales for a few months and then come back to them
;-) You already know its working so don't be hung up on the number on the
scales.

[MikeyOz[_75_]]

Vintage Wrote:
>
> Or just throw out your scales for a few months and then come back to
> them
> ;-) You already know its working so don't be hung up on the number on
> the
> scales.

Could not agree more..... I have given up with scales, I know and can
tell how my fitness and weight are going.


--
MikeyOz

[OzCableguy]

"Tomasso" > wrote in message
...

> So, body fat down, muscle mass up (initially), glycogen store up. First
> month,
> maybe no apparent loss. After that, (depending on your size and diet), 1
> Kg or
> so a month down. If the gym work has a muscle building component, then
> muscle
> mass up will be ongoing...
>
>

I sense that I've passed to the other side of the bell curve (assuming it
can be plotted as a bell curve) in the last few weeks in that muscle mass
has increased to the right percentage to cause a much faster metabolic rate
with a much lower liklihood to store calories. As long as I keep it up I'll
continue to make good gains while decreasing body fat %.
I've learned a lot about low GI eating, timed carbs, proper recovery &
interval training which seem to be making all the difference, but while I'm
definitely getting leaner I was hoping to be a lot lighter on the scales at
the end of it to the benefit of my cycling. But on the other hand I'm not
likely to ever race and it's all about health & fitness so it's probably no
biggy if I end up 20kgs or so heavier than your average whippet. As long as
it's lean mass it's all good. ;-)

--
www.ozcableguy.com
www.oztechnologies.com

[Michael Warner[_2_]]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:56:14 GMT, OzCableguy wrote:

> I sense that I've passed to the other side of the bell curve (assuming it
> can be plotted as a bell curve) in the last few weeks in that muscle mass
> has increased to the right percentage to cause a much faster metabolic rate
> with a much lower liklihood to store calories. As long as I keep it up I'll
> continue to make good gains while decreasing body fat %.
> I've learned a lot about low GI eating, timed carbs, proper recovery &
> interval training which seem to be making all the difference, but while I'm
> definitely getting leaner I was hoping to be a lot lighter on the scales at
> the end of it to the benefit of my cycling.

Being lighter is only of benefit for climbing, and if you get too obsessive
about losing weight you can easily weaken yourself so that your strength
and endurance suffer. I'm about 187cm, and have found that pushing myself
below 77kg makes me weaker on the flat, and doesn't help my climbing
(not to mention constantly obsessed with food!) so I no longer worry about
trying to be as light as others my height with a thinner build.

Concentrating on fitness and body fat gives the best performance IME.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

[MikeyOz[_76_]]

Michael Warner Wrote:
>
> Concentrating on fitness and body fat gives the best performance IME.
>

Again, agree, I am 5'11" and have found for me that anything below 74
kgs and my fitness starts to suffer, another reason again I have given
the scales the flick, just useless and found myself obsessing about it
at times.


--
MikeyOz

[OzCableguy]

"MikeyOz" > wrote in message
...
> Again, agree, I am 5'11" and have found for me that anything below 74
> kgs and my fitness starts to suffer, another reason again I have given
> the scales the flick, just useless and found myself obsessing about it
> at times.
>

Heh. I'm also 5'11" and at the rate I'm going I'm not even likely to make it
into double figures on the scales. If I retain all of my current lean mass
I'll still be just over 100 kgs at 5% BF. Using pinch test results over the
last 8 weeks I can see a 3 kg increase in lean mass & 9 kg loss of fat mass
so the current fitness plan is retaining (and gaining) the lean tissue. I
was hoping for low 90's in the longer term but I'm not sure I can
comfortably cut back the meal portions to hold it at that level
indefinitely.
OTOH, I'm strong on the bike even now and liking what I see in the mirror
lately so I should stop despairing and embrace what I've been given and go
for it. As a swimmer in high school I remember being 85kgs at 14 yrs old and
I have a picture of me on the podium with abs. I was heavier set than just
about all of my competitors and totally the wrong shape for swimming but I
still kept winning races right up to State level. I guess I'm always going
to be a big boy but that doesn't mean I can't be a good cyclist as well (as
long as the bikes don't break and I can find big enough jerseys). :-)

--
www.ozcableguy.com
www.oztechnologies.com

[Tomasso[_2_]]

"OzCableguy" > wrote in message ...
>
> "MikeyOz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Again, agree, I am 5'11" and have found for me that anything below 74
>> kgs and my fitness starts to suffer, another reason again I have given
>> the scales the flick, just useless and found myself obsessing about it
>> at times.
>>
>
> Heh. I'm also 5'11" and at the rate I'm going I'm not even likely to make it
> into double figures on the scales. If I retain all of my current lean mass
> I'll still be just over 100 kgs at 5% BF. Using pinch test results over the
> last 8 weeks I can see a 3 kg increase in lean mass & 9 kg loss of fat mass
> so the current fitness plan is retaining (and gaining) the lean tissue. I
> was hoping for low 90's in the longer term but I'm not sure I can
> comfortably cut back the meal portions to hold it at that level
> indefinitely.
> OTOH, I'm strong on the bike even now and liking what I see in the mirror
> lately so I should stop despairing and embrace what I've been given and go
> for it. As a swimmer in high school I remember being 85kgs at 14 yrs old and
> I have a picture of me on the podium with abs. I was heavier set than just
> about all of my competitors and totally the wrong shape for swimming but I
> still kept winning races right up to State level. I guess I'm always going
> to be a big boy but that doesn't mean I can't be a good cyclist as well (as
> long as the bikes don't break and I can find big enough jerseys). :-)
>
> --
> www.ozcableguy.com
> www.oztechnologies.com

I got back to my middle high school weight once (a drop of 12 Kg), but it took
running 40K - 50K a week for about a year. Was still strong. Cycling never
got me the same amount of weight loss as running (but it is more enjoyable).

T.

[Bleve]

On Jun 20, 10:53 am, "OzCableguy" >
wrote:
> "MikeyOz" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > Again, agree, I am 5'11" and have found for me that anything below 74
> > kgs and my fitness starts to suffer, another reason again I have given
> > the scales the flick, just useless and found myself obsessing about it
> > at times.
>
> Heh. I'm also 5'11" and at the rate I'm going I'm not even likely to make it
> into double figures on the scales. If I retain all of my current lean mass
> I'll still be just over 100 kgs at 5% BF. Using pinch test results over the
> last 8 weeks I can see a 3 kg increase in lean mass & 9 kg loss of fat mass
> so the current fitness plan is retaining (and gaining) the lean tissue. I
> was hoping for low 90's in the longer term but I'm not sure I can
> comfortably cut back the meal portions to hold it at that level
> indefinitely.
> OTOH, I'm strong on the bike even now and liking what I see in the mirror
> lately so I should stop despairing and embrace what I've been given and go
> for it. As a swimmer in high school I remember being 85kgs at 14 yrs old and
> I have a picture of me on the podium with abs. I was heavier set than just
> about all of my competitors and totally the wrong shape for swimming but I
> still kept winning races right up to State level. I guess I'm always going
> to be a big boy but that doesn't mean I can't be a good cyclist as well (as
> long as the bikes don't break and I can find big enough jerseys). :-)
>

Similar story, I'm 6 foot and at present around 97kg. At my absolute
fittest
before the '05 Warny, I was 87kg and training 28+hrs a week, lots of
intensity.
I can't stay below 90kg without being anal about food, forget that!

If you're a big, strong lad, maybe look at doing strength sports like
criteriums,
sprint events and so on. Hills will always be your mortal enemy.

[vintage]

"Bleve" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 20, 10:53 am, "OzCableguy" >
> wrote:
> > "MikeyOz" > wrote in
message
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > Again, agree, I am 5'11" and have found for me that anything below 74
> > > kgs and my fitness starts to suffer, another reason again I have given
> > > the scales the flick, just useless and found myself obsessing about it
> > > at times.
> >
> > Heh. I'm also 5'11" and at the rate I'm going I'm not even likely to
make it
> > into double figures on the scales. If I retain all of my current lean
mass
> > I'll still be just over 100 kgs at 5% BF. Using pinch test results over
the
> > last 8 weeks I can see a 3 kg increase in lean mass & 9 kg loss of fat
mass
> > so the current fitness plan is retaining (and gaining) the lean tissue.
I
> > was hoping for low 90's in the longer term but I'm not sure I can
> > comfortably cut back the meal portions to hold it at that level
> > indefinitely.
> > OTOH, I'm strong on the bike even now and liking what I see in the
mirror
> > lately so I should stop despairing and embrace what I've been given and
go
> > for it. As a swimmer in high school I remember being 85kgs at 14 yrs old
and
> > I have a picture of me on the podium with abs. I was heavier set than
just
> > about all of my competitors and totally the wrong shape for swimming but
I
> > still kept winning races right up to State level. I guess I'm always
going
> > to be a big boy but that doesn't mean I can't be a good cyclist as well
(as
> > long as the bikes don't break and I can find big enough jerseys). :-)
> >
>
> Similar story, I'm 6 foot and at present around 97kg. At my absolute
> fittest
> before the '05 Warny, I was 87kg and training 28+hrs a week, lots of
> intensity.
> I can't stay below 90kg without being anal about food, forget that!
>
> If you're a big, strong lad, maybe look at doing strength sports like
> criteriums,
> sprint events and so on. Hills will always be your mortal enemy.
>
>

And you get constantly sick coz your immune system is up the creek. I found
that when a good climbing weight of 67kgs and 181cms tall. I'm now a
healthier 74kgs and feel good. You have to find your own level and stick
with that. Not everyone is the same.

[OzCableguy]

"Bleve" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Similar story, I'm 6 foot and at present around 97kg. At my absolute
> fittest
> before the '05 Warny, I was 87kg and training 28+hrs a week, lots of
> intensity.
> I can't stay below 90kg without being anal about food, forget that!
>
> If you're a big, strong lad, maybe look at doing strength sports like
> criteriums,
> sprint events and so on. Hills will always be your mortal enemy.
>

Thanks Bleve. That's comforting to hear. Cheers!

Is bicycle drag racing common at all? I remember reading about it at
http://www.fixed.org.au/2007/05/13/bicycle-drag-racing/ and another US site.
It seems to be a fixie thing and I'm not too sure if I like the fixed
sensation that much, but I know I've got pretty wicked acceleration so it
might be just the thing for me. ;)

--
www.ozcableguy.com
www.oztechnologies.com

[Bleve]

On Jun 20, 11:17 pm, "OzCableguy" >
wrote:
> "Bleve" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > Similar story, I'm 6 foot and at present around 97kg. At my absolute
> > fittest
> > before the '05 Warny, I was 87kg and training 28+hrs a week, lots of
> > intensity.
> > I can't stay below 90kg without being anal about food, forget that!
>
> > If you're a big, strong lad, maybe look at doing strength sports like
> > criteriums,
> > sprint events and so on. Hills will always be your mortal enemy.
>
> Thanks Bleve. That's comforting to hear. Cheers!
>
> Is bicycle drag racing common at all?


BMX is essentially a drag race, as is (although there's more to it
than that, a lot ...) match sprinting.

I felt the same way about fixed gears, the first time I rode one I
hated it, and didn't get back on one until I finally decided to give
track racing a go (had to be a 'complete' cyclist, I've raced just
about everything else :) ). With some good coaching and plenty of
time just getting the feel for a fixed gear, I have to admit I've
taken to it like a duck to water. It does suit those of us who are
always going to be big a lot better than road (there's just no flat
road races in Victoria ... there was, but they've pretty-much
finished), and also MTB. Don't get me wrong though, MTB and hills are
great fun to ride, I've ridden up Mt Hotham now some 12 times I think,
and I've ridden up Baw Baw, done an Alpine classic etc and it's really
rewarding, but us bigger people will always really suffer if racing in
hilly terrain.

So maybe if you want to use racing as a motivator and a reward driver,
consider track and/or criteriums. There may be dirt crits in your
area too? They're sometimes a lot flatter than most MTB courses - the
dirt crits in Melbourne that run under the west gate bridge are mostly
flat, the small (ok, tiny!) hills aren't enough to cause any serious
damage so heavy riders don't loose too much on them.

If you have a good sprint, crits and track are your best bet, I
suggest. And one of the best things I've found about track (here
anyway) is that my club (blackburn) has 6 grades over summer, so
everyone can be competitive.

[OzCableguy]

"Bleve" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> With some good coaching and plenty of
> time just getting the feel for a fixed gear, I have to admit I've
> taken to it like a duck to water. It does suit those of us who are
> always going to be big a lot better than road

Sounds interesting. I might have to look into that when my fitness is a bit
closer to where I want it to be.

Thanks again.

--
www.ozcableguy.com
www.oztechnologies.com

[TimC]

On 2007-06-20, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Similar story, I'm 6 foot and at present around 97kg. At my absolute
> fittest
> before the '05 Warny, I was 87kg and training 28+hrs a week, lots of
> intensity.
> I can't stay below 90kg without being anal about food, forget that!
>
> If you're a big, strong lad, maybe look at doing strength sports like
> criteriums,
> sprint events and so on. Hills will always be your mortal enemy.

I like the Kew crits. Nice hill on the sprint line. Makes you
sprinters slow so us little weeny guys can win :)

--
TimC
Love makes the world go 'round, with a little help from intrinsic
angular momentum. --unknown