Average Speed ( What should I do )



Status
Not open for further replies.
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 Rowland

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]du.au> 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
( Ieat 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.
B: 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.
B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 

Etxy

New Member
Jan 29, 2003
180
0
0
Originally posted by Ozzii Pete
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.
B: 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:

4.30 (130%) = Very Light: Sitting, studying, talking, little walking or other activities through
out the day
5.55 (155%) = Light: Typing, teaching, lab/shop work, some walking throughout the day

The Average Fitness Buff Range:

6.55 (155%) = Light: Typing, teaching, lab/shop work, some walking throughout the day
7.65 (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:

8.80 (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
9.00 (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.

.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
(10.2lb) 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.
B: 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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.