Average Speed ( What should I do )



O

Ozzii Pete

Guest
Hi guys I just started a exercise course to lose some weight.
My question is, I ride my Mountain bike from one point to another, total
distance covered is around 47 ks.
My average speed is 22.2 .
Is this a brisk speed for this distance, or am I going tooooo slow.

Whats considered a brisk speed ?
Thanks guys.
 
J

John Tserkezis

Guest
Ozzii Pete wrote:

> Hi guys I just started a exercise course to lose some weight.
> My question is, I ride my Mountain bike from one point to another, total
> distance covered is around 47 ks.
> My average speed is 22.2 .
> Is this a brisk speed for this distance, or am I going tooooo slow.


Depends on the terrain. If there's lots of starts and stops, it will kill
your average speed, if it's a clear run, your average will be higher.

> Whats considered a brisk speed ?


Depends on what you're comparing against. Someone who takes out their huffy
once every six months, or someone at the other end of the scale?

Don't make it a contest if you don't have to. Go at your own pace, be it
slow or be it fast. Do make it fun, that's the whole idea.

--
Linux Registered User # 302622 <http://counter.li.org>
 
P

Paulus

Guest
It all depends on your fitness level and the terrain you ride over. If you
are new, then 22kph sounds respectable.

Paul

"Ozzii Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Hi guys I just started a exercise course to lose some weight.
> My question is, I ride my Mountain bike from one point to another, total
> distance covered is around 47 ks.
> My average speed is 22.2 .
> Is this a brisk speed for this distance, or am I going tooooo slow.
>
> Whats considered a brisk speed ?
> Thanks guys.
>
>
 
M

Mike

Guest
Ozzii Pete wrote:

> Whats considered a brisk speed ?


As they say, it depends on terrain, winds etc.

The best way to measure effort is pulse rate. You can get a meter
or just put a finger on the neck artery while watching the speedo
timer.

As for loosing weight, the calories burned in a ride is rather
lower than you might think. Better to look at it as increasing
fittness and metabolism. If you are obese, get medical advice
on the exercise program.

HTH.
 
L

Lindsay Rowlands

Guest
Ozzii Pete <[email protected]> wrote:
: Hi guys I just started a exercise course to lose some weight.
: My question is, I ride my Mountain bike from one point to another, total
: distance covered is around 47 ks.
: My average speed is 22.2 .
: Is this a brisk speed for this distance, or am I going tooooo slow.

: Whats considered a brisk speed ?
: Thanks guys.

If you want authoritive advice, seek out a trainer or other fitness
professional, for here you are drinking at the fountain of armchair
advice!

Having said that, my two bits worth are: If you want to lose weight, heart
rate is a more useful measure, ie, spending long periods of activity above
about 65% and below about 85% of maximum heart rate are desirable.

This translates as long, slow - but not too slow - rides. Rides in excess
of 90 minutes work for me and longer is better. It is also important to
keep up hydration and food because you can get into a world of pain by
dehydrating and/or bonking. So, you see, it isn't straight forward.

While it is vitally important to exercise when aiming for weight loss,
anyone who has been successful will tell you that what you put in your
mouth has the biggest impact. As a personal example, I lost a couple of
kilos in two weeks by cutting out a morning tea snack each day and the
occasional bag of chips. And this was without increasing my riding in any
way.

Average speed measurements are only really useful if you want to compare
the same distance in similar conditions. If you keep at riding regularly,
you will find a natural increase in average speed as you become fitter and
hopefully lighter, keeping in mind that AvSp really only indicates in a
fairly imprecise way intensity and for weight loss, that isn't what you
should be shooting for.

If you could ride 47ks at a comfortable/easy intensity three or more times
a week and cut out eating junk food then you will definitely be on the
side of losing weight.

When I started using a heart rate monitor I realised that all my rides
were too intense and that accounted for why I wasn't improving my fitness.
I backed off and then made progress. Well, that's my contribution!

Cheerz,
Lynzz
 
J

John Dwyer

Guest
"Ozzii Pete" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Hi guys I just started a exercise course to lose some weight.
> My question is, I ride my Mountain bike from one point to another, total
> distance covered is around 47 ks.
> My average speed is 22.2 .
> Is this a brisk speed for this distance, or am I going tooooo slow.
>
> Whats considered a brisk speed ?
> Thanks guys.
>
>

It also depends on how old you are and what your medical conditions are. I
am 57 and had bypass surgery 7 years ago. I am not as fast as I used to be,
and I was never strong anyway. For me to average 22 kph is pretty good.
Even so, I suspect that I could improve on that with a bit of thorough
training.

John Dwyer
 
G

Gags

Guest
"Lindsay Rowlands" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Ozzii Pete <[email protected]> wrote:
> : Hi guys I just started a exercise course to lose some weight.
> : My question is, I ride my Mountain bike from one point to another, total
> : distance covered is around 47 ks.
> : My average speed is 22.2 .
> : Is this a brisk speed for this distance, or am I going tooooo slow.
>
> : Whats considered a brisk speed ?
> : Thanks guys.
>
> If you want authoritive advice, seek out a trainer or other fitness
> professional, for here you are drinking at the fountain of armchair
> advice!
>
> Having said that, my two bits worth are: If you want to lose weight, heart
> rate is a more useful measure, ie, spending long periods of activity above
> about 65% and below about 85% of maximum heart rate are desirable.
>


Finally, two people in a row who know how to spell lose - you don't loose
weight - that spelling really bugs me for some reason :)

The 65% to 85% max HR range is actually more like the range to train in to
increase cardiovascular fitness (good for base training and general
fitness). Sure, you will burn fat at these intensities but if fat loss is
your main goal, then you are actually better off training at about 45% to
65% of max HR. The catch is that this only rings true if the distance is
the same rather than the time (ie 1 hr @ 45-65% will not burn more fat than
1 hr @ 65% to 85%, but, 47km @ 45-65% will utilise more fat than 47km @
65-85%). As with most things you have to compromise depending on how much
time you have available and what your long term goals are.

> This translates as long, slow - but not too slow - rides. Rides in excess
> of 90 minutes work for me and longer is better. It is also important to
> keep up hydration and food because you can get into a world of pain by
> dehydrating and/or bonking. So, you see, it isn't straight forward.
>
> While it is vitally important to exercise when aiming for weight loss,
> anyone who has been successful will tell you that what you put in your
> mouth has the biggest impact. As a personal example, I lost a couple of
> kilos in two weeks by cutting out a morning tea snack each day and the
> occasional bag of chips. And this was without increasing my riding in any
> way.
>


What Lindsay is saying is good advice. If you want to lose weight, you
should concentrate on LSD training (don't get excited, it means Long, Slow,
Distance). Basically you need to have your body utilising its aerobic
energy systems and to do this you need to exercise at a moderate intensity
for long periods of time. She is especially correct in that what you eat
plays a big part in your results. As you have not said what your current
situation is (could range from wanting to lose a couple of kg for summer to
up in the obese range), it is hard to know what your final goals are.

Generally, people talk of losing weight when in fact they want to lose fat.
This is good not only for body image but also for health reasons as excess
fat stored around the waistline (as is the case for most men) has bad health
implications and is likely to contribute to narrowing of the arteries and
increase the risk of type 2 (adult onset) diabetes. A good rule of thumb
with dieting for fat loss is to keep daily fat consumption below 40 grams
per day. The best way to achieve this is to buy one of the "Fats and
Figures" books for about five bucks from a bookstore and then keep a food
diary for a few weeks. You quickly get to know which foods to avoid due to
their high fat content and you realise how you need to adjust your eating
habits to keep below 40g of fat a day (it is actually quite a challenge).

> Average speed measurements are only really useful if you want to compare
> the same distance in similar conditions. If you keep at riding regularly,
> you will find a natural increase in average speed as you become fitter and
> hopefully lighter, keeping in mind that AvSp really only indicates in a
> fairly imprecise way intensity and for weight loss, that isn't what you
> should be shooting for.
>
> If you could ride 47ks at a comfortable/easy intensity three or more times
> a week and cut out eating junk food then you will definitely be on the
> side of losing weight.
>


Excellent advice.

> When I started using a heart rate monitor I realised that all my rides
> were too intense and that accounted for why I wasn't improving my fitness.
> I backed off and then made progress. Well, that's my contribution!
>
> Cheerz,
> Lynzz


I have also done this Lynzz......it just doesn't seem right to ride so slow
for so long and I generally end up going flat out before too long.

I know this is a cycling news group but it must also be said that walking
and jogging are actually better fat burners than cycling (though not as
enjoyable by half). Cycling has a big advantage for overweight people in
that it is non load bearing and so puts less strain on the knees, ankles,
etc., but walking and jogging

Anyway Pete, all I can say is congratulations on taking the first
steps........the next one is to make exercise and good eating habits a
permanent part of your lifestyle.

Good Luck.

Oh Yeah......never GO ON A DIET.......this implies that sooner or later you
will COME OFF YOUR DIET and revert to poor eating habits. Instead, try to
make sensible changes to your eating and exercise habits that you can
maintain for good. Try eating lots of small meals instead of three big ones
( I eat 6 or 7 times a day) and don't be so fanatical that you don't have
the occasional bit of food that is not so good for you (I can't go past a
donut if it is on offer).

Cheers,

Gags
 
D

DRS

Guest
Lindsay Rowlands <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]

[...]

> excess of 90 minutes work for me and longer is better. It is also
> important to keep up hydration and food because you can get into a
> world of pain by dehydrating and/or bonking.


If bonking gets you in a world of pain you're probably doing it wrong.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
D

DRS

Guest
Gags <[email protected]_ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
[email protected]

[...]

> onset) diabetes. A good rule of thumb with dieting for fat loss is
> to keep daily fat consumption below 40 grams per day. The best way
> to achieve this is to buy one of the "Fats and Figures" books for
> about five bucks from a bookstore and then keep a food diary for a
> few weeks. You quickly get to know which foods to avoid due to their
> high fat content and you realise how you need to adjust your eating
> habits to keep below 40g of fat a day (it is actually quite a
> challenge).


There's no way you can advise anyone on their recommended daily fat
consumption without knowing enough about their physiology, lifestyle and
goals to properly calculate their actual calorific consumption, their BMR
and then set their targets accordingly.

I am currently reducing my body fat% and I'm eating accordingly - yet my
recommended daily fat intake is (just checking the spreadsheet) 49.5grams.
And I've lost about three kilos so far. The problem with the low fat
message is that it's ******** and any honest nutritionist will tell you the
food pyramid we've grown up with is just accurate enough to be dangerous
(there's a new one due out soon). For the past twenty to thirty years we've
been steadily reducing our fat intake and yet as a society we've been
getting steadily fatter. Think about it.

I don't advocate a full Atkins diet (too many saturated fats for starters)
but he was right about one thing: if you want to lose body fat you need to
reduce your *carbohydrate* consumption. Cutting your fats intake - and you
need the good fats, the poly- and monounsaturated ones, plus Omega-3 etc. -
without cutting your *sugar* intake (which, at the end of the day, is all
carbohydrates are) is a recipe for... (wait for it)... GETTING FAT!

Broadly speaking the macronutritional breakdown for someone exercising
regularly should be (in this order of importance):

Protein: 0.8g/lb Lean Body Mass (that's your weight minus your fat).
Fats: about 33% of your target calories, of which saturated fats should be
33% or less.
Carbohydrates: whatever is left.

The thing is this. Your body is incredibly good at keeping itself alive and
it will use whatever it has to. Having said that, it prefers certain energy
sources to others, and since losing or gaining weight is ultimately all
about manipulating energy levels you can use that fact to your advantage.
Roughly speaking your body will use carbohydrates, then fats and lastly
proteins as sources of energy. So, when you cut back on the carbohydrates
it will go for the fat stores next - which is what you want. However, don't
cut your calorie intake too far below maintenance or your body will kick
into starvation mode, and it will do everything it can to avoid using its
fat stores, so it will start targetting your muscles. Breaking down
proteins to use as energy is inefficient but in starvation mode it will do
that rather than use your fat stores.

So, having calculated your BMR and your actual daily calorific consumption,
if you want to lose weight healthily set a target daily calorific
consumption about 500 calories below maintenance, keep your protein and fat
intake at their correct levels, drop your *carbohydrate* consumption
heavily - and you'll see your body fat% drop slowly but steadily. There's
roughly 3,500 calories per pound of fat so this regime should consume about
one pound of fat per week, not including any loss of weight due to water
loss.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
E

Etxy

Guest
Ozzii Pete wrote:
> Hi guys I just started a exercise course to lose some weight. My
> question is, I ride my Mountain bike from one point to another, total
> distance covered is around 47 ks. My average speed is 22.2 . Is this a
> brisk speed for this distance, or am I going tooooo slow.
> Whats considered a brisk speed ? Thanks guys.




On my mountain bike, I'd be stoked to have an average like that. On my
mountain bike, depending on terrain, etc. I'm usually around 20.
However, on my road bike I average around 25-27. With slick tyres on
your mountain bike, (if you don't have them already) expect to see your
Average climb fairly dramatically.



--
 
R

Ritch

Guest
Etxy <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Ozzii Pete wrote:
> > Hi guys I just started a exercise course to lose some weight. My
> > question is, I ride my Mountain bike from one point to another, total
> > distance covered is around 47 ks. My average speed is 22.2 . Is this a
> > brisk speed for this distance, or am I going tooooo slow.
> > Whats considered a brisk speed ? Thanks guys.

>
>
>
> On my mountain bike, I'd be stoked to have an average like that. On my
> mountain bike, depending on terrain, etc. I'm usually around 20.
> However, on my road bike I average around 25-27. With slick tyres on
> your mountain bike, (if you don't have them already) expect to see your
> Average climb fairly dramatically.
>


I'll second that - slick tyres make a big difference on the road. An
average of 22.2 is probably quite good (for you, given that you have
just started getting into a fitness regime). Everyone is different -
elite athletes tend to go faster, but so what? Just enjoy it, push
yourself and get better (or not).

Ritch

PS. As long as you arrive at the same time as your bike, you'll be
fine.
 
K

kingsley

Guest
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 20:06:41 +1000, Ozzii Pete wrote:

> distance covered is around 47 ks.
> My average speed is 22.2 .
> Is this a brisk speed for this distance, or am I going tooooo slow.


Depends on the topography.

FWIW I think it's more important to enjoy it at whatever pace
you find comfortable. If you actually like the excercise you'll
probably do more of it.

On my 'usual' ride with undulating terrain, I only average about
this speed, or if towing the kids - about 3km/h less. Mind you
that's only over 20km or so.

-kt
 
G

Gags

Guest
"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Gags <[email protected]_ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
> [email protected]
>
>
> > onset) diabetes. A good rule of thumb with dieting for fat loss is
> > to keep daily fat consumption below 40 grams per day. The best way
> > to achieve this is to buy one of the "Fats and Figures" books for
> > about five bucks from a bookstore and then keep a food diary for a
> > few weeks. You quickly get to know which foods to avoid due to their
> > high fat content and you realise how you need to adjust your eating
> > habits to keep below 40g of fat a day (it is actually quite a
> > challenge).

>
> There's no way you can advise anyone on their recommended daily fat
> consumption without knowing enough about their physiology, lifestyle and
> goals to properly calculate their actual calorific consumption, their BMR
> and then set their targets accordingly.
>
> I am currently reducing my body fat% and I'm eating accordingly - yet my
> recommended daily fat intake is (just checking the spreadsheet) 49.5grams.
> And I've lost about three kilos so far.


Hang on.......just getting up on my soapbox........

First up, good on you for making an effort to reduce your body fat %.

I find it hard to believe that you claim that I shouldn't reccomend keeping
daily fat intake below 40g a day and yet on the strength of some
spreadsheet, you can get your intake down to within 0.5 of a gram?? I have
spent considerable time researching and practicing fitness and fat loss
through various sources over the last 10 to 15 years but yet you are sure
that the spreadsheet that you have is the be all and end all??

I think that you may be making a mistake if you are judging your success by
how much you weigh. The recommended levels of SUSTAINABLE weight loss are
generally quoted at approx 1 to 1.5kg per week. A lot of diets that people
"go on" give people a false sense of success when they lose weight (mainly
through fluid loss) in the initial stages. Unfortunately, when these people
"go off" their diet, the weight generally is put back on. Rather than
losing weight, most people really wish to reduce body fat levels and the
most important factor for fat loss is the reduction of fat in the diet.

>The problem with the low fat
> message is that it's ******** and any honest nutritionist will tell you

the
> food pyramid we've grown up with is just accurate enough to be dangerous
> (there's a new one due out soon).


Scaremongering.......it

>For the past twenty to thirty years we've
> been steadily reducing our fat intake and yet as a society we've been
> getting steadily fatter. Think about it.


Almost true....the past few decades have seen levels of fat intake stabilise
and perhaps decrease slightly although there has also been an increase in
the fat percentage in the diet. There are suggestions that decreases in
demands for physical activity through the advent of mod-cons have more than
offset the benefits gained from people exercising more and this has
contribute to the rising rates of over fatness.

> I don't advocate a full Atkins diet (too many saturated fats for starters)
> but he was right about one thing: if you want to lose body fat you need to
> reduce your *carbohydrate* consumption. Cutting your fats intake - and

you
> need the good fats, the poly- and monounsaturated ones, plus Omega-3

etc. -
> without cutting your *sugar* intake (which, at the end of the day, is all
> carbohydrates are) is a recipe for... (wait for it)... GETTING FAT!
>
> Broadly speaking the macronutritional breakdown for someone exercising
> regularly should be (in this order of importance):
>
> Protein: 0.8g/lb Lean Body Mass (that's your weight minus your fat).
> Fats: about 33% of your target calories, of which saturated fats should be
> 33% or less.
> Carbohydrates: whatever is left.


It sounds like you are quoting directly from whatever eating plan you have
currently decided is right for you. As I said, I don't advocate any diets -
just long term changes to eating habits. I assume that by "good fats" you
mean fats that don't contribute to rises in blood cholestorol?? You are
right in that you do need fat in your diet which is why I am advocating a
low fat intake, not a zero fat intake.

The "GETTING FAT" that you refer to is I think a reference to the results of
a no fat, low energy diet where the body goes into famine mode and starts
storing fat.

I am interested to know how you calculate your Lean Body Mass??? There are
many methods for calculating bodyfat levels but unless you have access to a
hydrostatic weighing facility (ie measure weight in the water allowing for
air trapped in lungs) or a DEXA machine (Dual energy X-ray absorptiometer),
then the results that you will get will not be accurate.

Skinfold Measurements can give a reasonable estimate but results will vary
depending on the skill of the operator and this method is also not accurate
for obese subjects.

Bio Impedance Analysis (the scales that also put a small current through
your body) are reasonable but can provide varying results depending on your
hydration levels at the time of testing.

The carbohydrates that should be increased in the diet are not the sugars,
but instead the complex carbohydrates such as starches found in wholegrain
bread, potatoes, brown rice, cereals, etc. It is pretty hard to get fat
from eating just starches.

> The thing is this. Your body is incredibly good at keeping itself alive

and
> it will use whatever it has to.


True

>Having said that, it prefers certain energy
> sources to others, and since losing or gaining weight is ultimately all
> about manipulating energy levels you can use that fact to your advantage.
> Roughly speaking your body will use carbohydrates, then fats and lastly
> proteins as sources of energy. So, when you cut back on the carbohydrates
> it will go for the fat stores next - which is what you want. However,

don't
> cut your calorie intake too far below maintenance or your body will kick
> into starvation mode, and it will do everything it can to avoid using its
> fat stores, so it will start targetting your muscles. Breaking down
> proteins to use as energy is inefficient but in starvation mode it will do
> that rather than use your fat stores.


It is not a simple as the body using one source of energy, then the next,
then the next. Initial exertion will use phosphates in the form of
Adenosine Triphosphates (ATP) and Creatine Phosphate that are stored in the
muscles (normally about 10 seconds worth). This can be replenished in 1 or
2 minutes ready for the next 10 second burst. As activity is extended for a
further minute or two, the body starts utilising the Lactate Systems which
is provides energy by anaerobic(no oxygen) glycolysis (breakdown of glucose)
to pyruvate. To utilise fat as an energy source, the body needs to use the
aerobic(with oxygen) energy system and enter the Krebs cycle. This results
in the body using a mixture of Glucose and Fat as energy sources. The
percentages of each source used will vary with the intensity and length of
the session. Generally speaking, lower intensity exercise will result in a
higher percentage of fat being utilised.

For the body to start breaking down proteins, it needs to be in a pretty
extreme situation and it should not be applicable in general day to day
life.

> So, having calculated your BMR and your actual daily calorific

consumption,
> if you want to lose weight healthily set a target daily calorific
> consumption about 500 calories below maintenance, keep your protein and

fat
> intake at their correct levels, drop your *carbohydrate* consumption
> heavily - and you'll see your body fat% drop slowly but steadily. There's
> roughly 3,500 calories per pound of fat so this regime should consume

about
> one pound of fat per week, not including any loss of weight due to water
> loss.


Once again, how do you calculate your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate)?? Unless
you have access to a metabolic chamber where all heat loss is measured for a
24hr period, your accuracy is restricted by charts that do not take into
account differences between individuals.

Daily energy consumption cannot be calculated without keeping some form of
food diary.

If you keep your energy intake below your maintenance level of your BMR, you
are not allowing for exercise (the initial subject of this thread) and so
your energy requirements could be far more than what you are taking in.
Very low energy level diets have the effect of reducing BMR which is counter
productive and not healthy.

Generally a low fat diet will be a high carbohydrate diet which is good
given that the energy value of fat (9 kcal/g) is double that of
carbohydrates (4.5 kcal/g). Fats consumed are also much more easily stored
by the body as fat than carbohydrates consumed are. It takes about 25% of
the energy content of a gram of glucose (carbohydrate) to be stored as body
fat compared to about 3% for the body to store a gram of fat as body fat.
The conversion of carbohydrate to body fat is known as "de novo lipogenesis"
and rarely happens except in the case of force-feeding of carbs (ie. carb
loading that elite athletes sometimes perform).

DRS, I am not just naysaying everything that you said and I think it is
great that you are actively looking at improving your body composition. I
just seem to get the impression that you are currently on a diet/program and
are quoting a number of precise percentages and levels as if they are
gospel. I do not know the level of your experience in this field but I
believe that many of your comments are ill-informed. There are a million
and one diets out there and most will result in some initial weight loss due
to reduction in energy intake......I hope that the one that you have chosen
gives you the results that you are after. Personally, with the risk of
sounding vain, I believe that how you look in the mirror and how your
clothes feel are better indications of progress than purely your weight. A
combination of a sensible exercise program and low fat (but energy
sufficient) eating habits will result in a reduction in your levels of
bodyfat. By slowly changing your body composition and increaseing the
percentage of FFM (Fat Free Mass) in your body you will improve the way you
look, increase your health, and increase your BMR.

Anyway.....time to get off my soapbox.

Gags
 
G

Gags

Guest
"hippy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > So, having calculated your BMR and your actual daily calorific

> consumption,
>
> How doth one calculate one's BMR?
>
> hippy
>

An estimate can be made using:

BMR = 66 + (13.7 x weight(kg)) + (5 x height(cm)) - (6.8 x age) kcal

so for me it is 66 + 13.7 x 100 + 5 x 195 - 6.8 x 32 = 2193 kcal (usally
called Calories with capital C).

Or more generally......

BMR = weight (in pounds) x 10.

Once again, for me

BMR = 100kg x 2.2 x 10 = 2200 kcal

As stated in my last post, these are only estimates and don't take into
account individual factors. Also, this is for basically staying in bed for
24hrs......you need to add more for exercise (I am sure that there are
charts out there for that too).
 
D

DRS

Guest
Gags <[email protected]_ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
[email protected]
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> Gags <[email protected]_ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
>> [email protected]
>>
>>> onset) diabetes. A good rule of thumb with dieting for fat loss is
>>> to keep daily fat consumption below 40 grams per day. The best way
>>> to achieve this is to buy one of the "Fats and Figures" books for
>>> about five bucks from a bookstore and then keep a food diary for a
>>> few weeks. You quickly get to know which foods to avoid due to
>>> their high fat content and you realise how you need to adjust your
>>> eating habits to keep below 40g of fat a day (it is actually quite a
>>> challenge).

>>
>> There's no way you can advise anyone on their recommended daily fat
>> consumption without knowing enough about their physiology, lifestyle
>> and goals to properly calculate their actual calorific consumption,
>> their BMR and then set their targets accordingly.
>>
>> I am currently reducing my body fat% and I'm eating accordingly -
>> yet my recommended daily fat intake is (just checking the
>> spreadsheet) 49.5grams. And I've lost about three kilos so far.

>
> Hang on.......just getting up on my soapbox........
>
> First up, good on you for making an effort to reduce your body fat %.
>
> I find it hard to believe that you claim that I shouldn't reccomend
> keeping daily fat intake below 40g a day and yet on the strength of
> some spreadsheet, you can get your intake down to within 0.5 of a
> gram?? I have spent considerable time researching and practicing
> fitness and fat loss through various sources over the last 10 to 15
> years but yet you are sure that the spreadsheet that you have is the
> be all and end all??


It's not rocket science. I use the ISSA BMR calculator. My BMR * my
Activity Level Multiplier gives my Actual Daily Calories. Subtract 500
calories for weight loss. My fat intake should be 1/3 of that (I actually
use .30). Excel churns through the formulae and says 49.5 grams of fat for
me is right. Of course I don't worry about fractions of a gram, but I want
to emphasize the poiint your 40gram recomendation is without foundation. My
number is calculated according to my physiology and activity, vital elements
you completely ignored regarding the OP.

> I think that you may be making a mistake if you are judging your
> success by how much you weigh. The recommended levels of SUSTAINABLE
> weight loss are generally quoted at approx 1 to 1.5kg per week. A
> lot of diets that people "go on" give people a false sense of success
> when they lose weight (mainly through fluid loss) in the initial
> stages. Unfortunately, when these people "go off" their diet, the


I'm not talking diets. The formulae hold true for weight loss, maintenance
and gain.

> weight generally is put back on. Rather than losing weight, most
> people really wish to reduce body fat levels and the most important
> factor for fat loss is the reduction of fat in the diet.


Nope. The most important factor is that your energy expenditure exceeds
your energy consumption but not by so much as to push the body into
starvation mode. The $64 question is the best way to get the body to
consume its fat stores. It turns out that dropping your carb intake is the
most important factor here (assuming your fat intake isn't grossly over what
it should be).

>> The problem with the low fat
>> message is that it's ******** and any honest nutritionist will tell
>> you the food pyramid we've grown up with is just accurate enough to
>> be dangerous (there's a new one due out soon).

>
> Scaremongering.......it


No, it's fact, which is why - I repeat - the USDA is about to throw the
current one out and replace it with something more accurate.

>> For the past twenty to thirty years we've
>> been steadily reducing our fat intake and yet as a society we've been
>> getting steadily fatter. Think about it.

>
> Almost true....the past few decades have seen levels of fat intake
> stabilise and perhaps decrease slightly although there has also been
> an increase in the fat percentage in the diet. There are suggestions
> that decreases in demands for physical activity through the advent of
> mod-cons have more than offset the benefits gained from people
> exercising more and this has contribute to the rising rates of over
> fatness.
>
>> I don't advocate a full Atkins diet (too many saturated fats for
>> starters) but he was right about one thing: if you want to lose body
>> fat you need to reduce your *carbohydrate* consumption. Cutting
>> your fats intake - and you need the good fats, the poly- and
>> monounsaturated ones, plus Omega-3

> etc. -
>> without cutting your *sugar* intake (which, at the end of the day,
>> is all carbohydrates are) is a recipe for... (wait for it)...
>> GETTING FAT!
>>
>> Broadly speaking the macronutritional breakdown for someone
>> exercising regularly should be (in this order of importance):
>>
>> Protein: 0.8g/lb Lean Body Mass (that's your weight minus your fat).
>> Fats: about 33% of your target calories, of which saturated fats
>> should be 33% or less.
>> Carbohydrates: whatever is left.

>
> It sounds like you are quoting directly from whatever eating plan you
> have currently decided is right for you. As I said, I don't advocate
> any diets - just long term changes to eating habits. I assume that


That is a long term eating plan. It's not a diet. The formulae hold true
for weight loss, maintenance and gain.

> by "good fats" you mean fats that don't contribute to rises in blood
> cholestorol?? You are right in that you do need fat in your diet
> which is why I am advocating a low fat intake, not a zero fat intake.


You're advocating too low fat intake without any regard to the person's
physiology. You just picked a number out of thin air.

> The "GETTING FAT" that you refer to is I think a reference to the
> results of a no fat, low energy diet where the body goes into famine
> mode and starts storing fat.


Nope, it's a reference to society's obsession with low fat everything yet it
consumes gigantic quantities of carbohydrates - sugars - and then has the
stupidity to wonder why it's so damned fat.

> I am interested to know how you calculate your Lean Body Mass???
> There are many methods for calculating bodyfat levels but unless you
> have access to a hydrostatic weighing facility (ie measure weight in
> the water allowing for air trapped in lungs) or a DEXA machine (Dual
> energy X-ray absorptiometer), then the results that you will get will
> not be accurate.


[...]

> Bio Impedance Analysis (the scales that also put a small current
> through your body) are reasonable but can provide varying results
> depending on your hydration levels at the time of testing.


According to the studies done at Columbia's obesity clinic BIA done properly
is at least as accurate as DEXA. If you have counter studies I'd love to
hear about them because every time I see people bagging BIA I ask for their
clinical evidence and thus far not one person has shown me so much as a
skerrick. For some reason there's a widespread prejudice against BIA and I
can't figure out why.

> The carbohydrates that should be increased in the diet are not the
> sugars, but instead the complex carbohydrates such as starches found
> in wholegrain bread, potatoes, brown rice, cereals, etc. It is
> pretty hard to get fat from eating just starches.


It's harder but far from impossible. If you eat enough of anyting you'll
get fat. But, yes, simple carbs generally bad, complex carbs generally
good.

>> The thing is this. Your body is incredibly good at keeping itself
>> alive and it will use whatever it has to.

>
> True
>
>> Having said that, it prefers certain energy
>> sources to others, and since losing or gaining weight is ultimately
>> all about manipulating energy levels you can use that fact to your
>> advantage. Roughly speaking your body will use carbohydrates, then


[...]

>
> It is not a simple as the body using one source of energy, then the
> next, then the next. Initial exertion will use phosphates in the


Sometimes you have to simplify to make a point. Did you note the "roughly
speaking"? The point is you reduce your carb intake before your fat intake.

[...]

>> So, having calculated your BMR and your actual daily calorific
>> consumption, if you want to lose weight healthily set a target daily
>> calorific consumption about 500 calories below maintenance, keep
>> your protein and fat intake at their correct levels, drop your
>> *carbohydrate* consumption heavily - and you'll see your body fat%
>> drop slowly but steadily. There's roughly 3,500 calories per pound
>> of fat so this regime should consume about one pound of fat per
>> week, not including any loss of weight due to water loss.

>
> Once again, how do you calculate your BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate)??


I use the ISSA method. I posted it here once before (Hippy, you listening?
I was replying to you at the time). At the time I was under the
misapprehension that low fat was the way to go but after lots and lots of
research I now know that to be not so.

> Unless you have access to a metabolic chamber where all heat loss is
> measured for a 24hr period, your accuracy is restricted by charts
> that do not take into account differences between individuals.
>
> Daily energy consumption cannot be calculated without keeping some
> form of food diary.


Hence a spreadsheet.

> If you keep your energy intake below your maintenance level of your
> BMR, you are not allowing for exercise (the initial subject of this


Not with ISSA system. It factors in your general activity levels and is
close enough unless you're insanely anal about the whole thing.

> thread) and so your energy requirements could be far more than what
> you are taking in. Very low energy level diets have the effect of
> reducing BMR which is counter productive and not healthy.


Define very low. I haven't eliminated carbs, I've just significantly
reduced my intake. And it's working.

> Generally a low fat diet will be a high carbohydrate diet which is
> good given that the energy value of fat (9 kcal/g) is double that of
> carbohydrates (4.5 kcal/g). Fats consumed are also much more easily
> stored by the body as fat than carbohydrates consumed are. It takes
> about 25% of the energy content of a gram of glucose (carbohydrate)
> to be stored as body fat compared to about 3% for the body to store a
> gram of fat as body fat. The conversion of carbohydrate to body fat
> is known as "de novo lipogenesis" and rarely happens except in the
> case of force-feeding of carbs (ie. carb loading that elite athletes
> sometimes perform).


I know about that, but the fact that de novo lipogenesis isn't that common
is not the same thing as saying that excess carbs won't make you fat. If
you want to argue the point there's a guy over at misc.fitness.weights
called Lyle McDonald who'd be more than willing to set you straight. But
don't go there unless you've got your cites handy. Just a friendly warning.

> DRS, I am not just naysaying everything that you said and I think it
> is great that you are actively looking at improving your body
> composition. I just seem to get the impression that you are
> currently on a diet/program and are quoting a number of precise
> percentages and levels as if they are gospel. I do not know the


Nope, I'm not talking diets at all. I'm talking every day dietary habits.
The formulae hold true for weight loss, maintenance and gain.

> level of your experience in this field but I believe that many of
> your comments are ill-informed. There are a million and one diets


I'm not talking about diets. The formulae hold true for weight loss,
maintenance and gain.

> out there and most will result in some initial weight loss due to
> reduction in energy intake......I hope that the one that you have
> chosen gives you the results that you are after. Personally, with
> the risk of sounding vain, I believe that how you look in the mirror
> and how your clothes feel are better indications of progress than
> purely your weight. A combination of a sensible exercise program and
> low fat (but energy sufficient) eating habits will result in a
> reduction in your levels of bodyfat. By slowly changing your body
> composition and increaseing the percentage of FFM (Fat Free Mass) in
> your body you will improve the way you look, increase your health,
> and increase your BMR.


Quite so.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
D

DRS

Guest
hippy <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]
> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> So, having calculated your BMR and your actual daily calorific
>> consumption,

>
> How doth one calculate one's BMR?


Same way as the last time you asked me. :)

It's not that hard. I use the ISSA Basil Metabolic Rate (BMR) formula:

1. For Men: 1 x body weight (kg) x 24
For Women: 0.9 x body weight (kg) x 24

For you, that's 95 * 24 = 2280.

2. Factor in your body fat percentage. Multiply the result from Step 1 by
the multiplier factor:

Men 10 to 14%, Women 14 to 18%: 1.0
Men 14 to 20%, Women 18 to 28%: .95
Men 20 to 28%, Women 28 to 38%: .90
Men over 28%, Women over 38%: .85

For the sake of illustration I'll assume you're in the 20-28% group,
therefore:

2280 * .90 = 2052 calories per day. This is your BMR. It's your base rate.

3. Factor in your daily activity level. Multiply your BMR by the daily
activity level multiplier factor:

The Average Couch Potato range:

1.30 (130%) = Very Light: Sitting, studying, talking, little walking or
other activities through out the day
1.55 (155%) = Light: Typing, teaching, lab/shop work, some walking
throughout the day

The Average Fitness Buff Range:

1.55 (155%) = Light: Typing, teaching, lab/shop work, some walking
throughout the day
1.65 (165%) = Moderate: Walking, jogging, gardening type job with activities
such as cycling, tennis, dancing, skiing or weight training 1-2 hours per
day

The Average Athlete or Hard Daily Training Range:

1.80 (180%) = Heavy: Heavy manual labor such as digging, tree felling,
climbing, with activities such as football, soccer or body building 2-4
hours per day
2.00 (200%) = Very Heavy: A combination of moderate and heavy activity 8 or
more hours per day, plus 2-4 hours of intense training per day

For the sake of illustration I'll put you in the moderate group, therefore:

Actual Daily Calories = 2052 * 1.65 = 3386 calories (* 4.18 = 14153
kiloJoules) per day. This is how much you use every day on average. As a
general rule, if you want to lose weight then consume fewer calories than
this every day (start at -500 and see how you go), if you want to increase
weight consume more (start at +500 and see how you go):

Target calories:

Maintenance: 3386 calories
Gain: 3886 calories (maintenance +500)
Loss: 2886 calories (maintenance -500).

4a. Protein.

0.8g/lb LBM. For the sake of illustration I'll assume your body fat % is
20%. Since your weight is 95kg (209lb) that would give you a LBM of 76kg
(167.2lb) and therefore your protein intake should be 0.8 * 167.2 = 134
grams = 536 calories.

4b. Fats.

Roughly (Target calories * 1/3). Since we're assuming weight loss that
would be (2886 * .3) = 866 calories = 96 grams. No more than (96/3 =) 32
grams of that should be saturated fats, preferably less. Rule of thumb:
poly and mono-unsaturated fats and Omega3 fatty acids good, saturated fats
not so good, trans fats bad.

4c. Carbs:

Whatever is left. 2886 - 536 - 866 = 1484 calories = 371 grams.

There's a bit of flexibility in these targets but as long as you're fairly
close over the long haul they'll work for sustainable weight loss. The same
would go for maintenance or weight gain.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
T

Tim Jones

Guest
"Gags" <[email protected]_ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> "hippy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> > > So, having calculated your BMR and your actual daily calorific

> > consumption,
> >
> > How doth one calculate one's BMR?
> >
> > hippy
> >

> An estimate can be made using:
>
> BMR = 66 + (13.7 x weight(kg)) + (5 x height(cm)) - (6.8 x age) kcal
>
> so for me it is 66 + 13.7 x 100 + 5 x 195 - 6.8 x 32 = 2193 kcal (usally
> called Calories with capital C).
>


Hey! Pretty close to me: 66 + 13.7 x 100 + 5 x 193 - 6.8 x 31 = 2190 kcal

And from DRS's stats on activity, I ride an average of probably 2 hours a
day, plus a little swimming, so at moderate activity level I would need:

3614 kcal, or 15,104 kJ per day.

> Or more generally......
>
> BMR = weight (in pounds) x 10.
>
> Once again, for me
>
> BMR = 100kg x 2.2 x 10 = 2200 kcal
>
> As stated in my last post, these are only estimates and don't take into
> account individual factors. Also, this is for basically staying in bed

for
> 24hrs......you need to add more for exercise (I am sure that there are
> charts out there for that too).
>


Cheers,

Tim
 
D

David Trudgett

Guest
kingsley wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 20:06:41 +1000, Ozzii Pete wrote:
>
>
>>distance covered is around 47 ks.
>>My average speed is 22.2 .
>>Is this a brisk speed for this distance, or am I going tooooo slow.

>
>
> Depends on the topography.
>
> FWIW I think it's more important to enjoy it at whatever pace
> you find comfortable. If you actually like the excercise you'll
> probably do more of it.



True enough. Actual speed is not very important anyway, unless you're
racing or trying for personal best perhaps. If you're pushing yourself
moderately then you're most likely improving your fitness effectively.

Today I did 36 km in 1'58" on road and pathways, so averaging 18 km/hr.
What can you tell about that? Nothing much, really, I think. It doesn't
tell you I stopped for a mobile phone call at the half way point, for
instance! :) At that average speed I was pushing it for that distance.
Also, I was on a heavy MTB with a couple of kilos on the rear rack, and
off-road tyres. As you would expect, the terrain was not flat. It was
not extremely hilly either. I rode with and against the wind about
equally, and uphill and downhill about equally (out and back over the
same route). I wouldn't call myself super fit, and I usually enjoy my
rides better when I'm not in pain! :) So, 18 km/hr was a good speed for
me today. Tomorrow I might be flat out doing 15 km/hr if it's hot and
windy. The other day, I did 25 km averaging 18 km/hr again, but the
temperature ranged between 32 and 30 degrees, which made for a hot and
somewhat sweaty ride.


David