More training for fat loss

Discussion in 'Australia and New Zealand' started by OzCableguy, Jun 17, 2007.

  1. OzCableguy

    OzCableguy Guest

    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
     
    Tags:


  2. warrwych

    warrwych New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,009
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. :)
     
  3. Tomasso

    Tomasso Guest

    "OzCableguy" <ozcableguy@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message news:Ezodi.15312$wH4.5040@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
    > 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.
     
  4. Vintage

    Vintage Guest

    "Tomasso" <Tomasso@blank.blank> wrote in message
    news:46763910$0$22446$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
    >
    > "OzCableguy" <ozcableguy@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message

    news:Ezodi.15312$wH4.5040@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
    > > 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.
     
  5. MikeyOz

    MikeyOz New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    942
    Likes Received:
    0
    Could not agree more..... I have given up with scales, I know and can tell how my fitness and weight are going.
     
  6. OzCableguy

    OzCableguy Guest

    "Tomasso" <Tomasso@blank.blank> wrote in message
    news:46763910$0$22446$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

    > 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
     
  7. 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
     
  8. MikeyOz

    MikeyOz New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    942
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  9. OzCableguy

    OzCableguy Guest

    "MikeyOz" <MikeyOz.2sf24z@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
    news:MikeyOz.2sf24z@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
    > 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
     
  10. Tomasso

    Tomasso Guest

    "OzCableguy" <ozcableguy@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message news:aU_di.16329$wH4.4759@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
    >
    > "MikeyOz" <MikeyOz.2sf24z@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote in message
    > news:MikeyOz.2sf24z@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
    >> 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.
     
  11. OzCableguy

    OzCableguy Guest

    "Bleve" <carl.I.brewer@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1182383560.056085.74670@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.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
     
Loading...

Share This Page

Loading...