Weight Loss = Higher Body Fat % ??
12-23-06, 01:56 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Weight Loss = Higher Body Fat % ??
According to my bio-electrical impedence body composition scale (by Tanita), I have gained body fat as a percentage of my body weight over the past 5--6 weeks.
My cycling capacities have certainly increased over that time period as well (subjective impression).
Questions:
- November 3, 2006: 31.4% non-lean tissue, 287.6 lbs.
- November 9, 2006: 23.5%, 285.8 lbs.
- December 23, 2006: 25.4%, 280.0 lbs.
My cycling capacities have certainly increased over that time period as well (subjective impression).Questions:
- It is possible that the scale is a little inaccurate. Since it's still around the 23--25% mark, should I consider myself still in the neighborhood and don't fret?
- Is it possible that the scale actually is accurate, and over the last month I've been losing more muscular tissue than fat?
- If so, what can I do to lose more fat? (I have a large quantity of muscle as a former football player/powerlifter and so am not overly concerned about a little muscular loss except in my legs where that might effect cycling.)
- I know that to optimize fat-burning in the body, exercise should be done around 50--70% of HRmax. But my thinking has been: "Go as hard as I like, burn the calories, the body will lose the weight." So, during various rides, I often do exceed 75--80% HRmax.
12-24-06, 04:48 PM
#2
Senior Member
1. I wouldn't trust the precision too much, I consider a +/- 5% reading to be indistinguishable from each other.
2. very posible, post a training and diet log, eh?
3. Fat is constant and you loose or gain it slowly over time. However, muscle is ALWAYS being broken down and rebuilt. A net loss of muscle-mass then means that you've been losing it faster than you're rebuilding.
4. Don't worry about HR-zones, they all burn fat and the higher ones actually burn more fat in absolute calories/hr amounts than the lower ones. It just happens that 30% looks smaller than 45%, but 30% of 600 calories/hr still burns more fat than 45% of 350 cal/hr (180 cal/hr of fat vs. 158 cal/hr).
If you're looking to burn fat, there's no way around burning as many calories per day as possible. That means you need to do at least one 2.5-3.0 hr LSD/endurance ride per week, two if possible. It's really the 3rd hour of these rides that really burn off the fat and you want to do them as fast as you can hold at a steady pace the entire time. That's why people typically say you have to ride slower for endurance rides, it's not because of the fat-burning, it's because you want be able to at least FINISH the 3-hr ride. So pick a brisk pace you can hold the entire time for the 3-hour ride. Even if you have to slow down to 10mph, do 3-hours minimum.
Then nutrition is a big deal with fitness improvements and recovery. You NEED sufficient carb-calories starting at 1.5-2.0 hour into the ride or else you'll get close to bonking and will end up eating muscle for fuel. Same with recovery after the ride, if you don't eat sufficient carbs to replenish your glycogen stores, your body will take apart perfectly good muscle to convert to glucose then glycogen.
Some articles about nutrition and muscle-building. Note these are bodybuilders and notice the ratios of their nutrition:
Bodybuilding.com - Anabolic Ammunition Arsenal (look about 3/4 down page for calorie-mix calculator)
ABCbodybuilding - A Scientific Investigation into the Rationality of Post Workout Carbohydrate Consumption
ABCbodybuilding - Analysis of Nutrient use during Low, Moderate, and High Intensity Exercise
SparkNotes - Functions of Carbohydrates
Peak Performance - How much protein do athletes need? note "up to 150gm a day" for performance athletes.
2. very posible, post a training and diet log, eh?
3. Fat is constant and you loose or gain it slowly over time. However, muscle is ALWAYS being broken down and rebuilt. A net loss of muscle-mass then means that you've been losing it faster than you're rebuilding.
4. Don't worry about HR-zones, they all burn fat and the higher ones actually burn more fat in absolute calories/hr amounts than the lower ones. It just happens that 30% looks smaller than 45%, but 30% of 600 calories/hr still burns more fat than 45% of 350 cal/hr (180 cal/hr of fat vs. 158 cal/hr).
If you're looking to burn fat, there's no way around burning as many calories per day as possible. That means you need to do at least one 2.5-3.0 hr LSD/endurance ride per week, two if possible. It's really the 3rd hour of these rides that really burn off the fat and you want to do them as fast as you can hold at a steady pace the entire time. That's why people typically say you have to ride slower for endurance rides, it's not because of the fat-burning, it's because you want be able to at least FINISH the 3-hr ride. So pick a brisk pace you can hold the entire time for the 3-hour ride. Even if you have to slow down to 10mph, do 3-hours minimum.
Then nutrition is a big deal with fitness improvements and recovery. You NEED sufficient carb-calories starting at 1.5-2.0 hour into the ride or else you'll get close to bonking and will end up eating muscle for fuel. Same with recovery after the ride, if you don't eat sufficient carbs to replenish your glycogen stores, your body will take apart perfectly good muscle to convert to glucose then glycogen.
Some articles about nutrition and muscle-building. Note these are bodybuilders and notice the ratios of their nutrition:
Bodybuilding.com - Anabolic Ammunition Arsenal (look about 3/4 down page for calorie-mix calculator)
ABCbodybuilding - A Scientific Investigation into the Rationality of Post Workout Carbohydrate Consumption
ABCbodybuilding - Analysis of Nutrient use during Low, Moderate, and High Intensity Exercise
SparkNotes - Functions of Carbohydrates
Peak Performance - How much protein do athletes need? note "up to 150gm a day" for performance athletes.
Last edited by DannoXYZ; 12-24-06 at 04:56 PM.
12-24-06, 08:56 PM
#3
Isaias
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Essex, MD
Posts: 5,182
Bikes: Ridley X-Fire (carbon, white)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
You have to remember that the Tanita scale considers water weight as lean tissue. So, if you are dehydrated and/or muscle glycogen depleted (3 grams of water accompanies every gram of stored glycogen), the scale can give you a false measurement.
12-24-06, 09:38 PM
#4
In Real Life
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Down under down under
Posts: 52,152
Bikes: Lots
Mentioned: 141 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3203 Post(s)
Liked 596 Times
in
329 Posts
It is possible that the scale is a little inaccurate. Since it's still around the 23--25% mark, should I consider myself still in the neighborhood and don't fret?
Yeah, it's entirely possible that your scale is inaccurate. No method of measuring body fat is 100% accurate. They are all estimates at best, and depend on many factors. Have a look at this article, for example:
https://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...14/ai_18700379
Is it possible that the scale actually is accurate, and over the last month I've been losing more muscular tissue than fat?
Have you been exercising? If you are regularly exercising, and remaining active for most of the day, you are probably not losing muscle tissue.
If so, what can I do to lose more fat? (I have a large quantity of muscle as a former football player/powerlifter and so am not overly concerned about a little muscular loss except in my legs where that might effect cycling.)
Ride more ... exercise more ... be more active.
There is a new theory being proclaimed around that the best way to lose weight is to exercise at a high intensity rather than at a lower intensity. Nonsense!! Sure, exercising at 80+% of your max heart rate will burn more calories, but you can't maintain that for any length of time.
Take the information in this article as an example: https://exercise.about.com/cs/cardiow.../aa022601a.htm
Suppose at 80+% of your max heart rate you can burn 6.86 calories per minute. Most people can only maintain 80+% of their max heart rates for a short period of time. Suppose a person can maintain it for 20 minutes before they are finished. That person will have burned 137.2 calories.
Now suppose at 60-65% of your max heart rate you can burn 4.86 calories per minute. Most people can maintain 60-65% of their max heart rates for quite a while. Suppose a person can maintain it for 2 hours (120 minutes) before they are finished. That person will have burned 583.2 calories.
1 lb = 3500 calories. If you exercise (i.e. cycle) for 2 hours a day, you could lose a pound a week without making any changes to your diet at all.
I suspect that this idea that working out at a higher intensity has come out because people don't want to take the time to exercise so they are cramming as much as they can into as short a period of time as possible. I suppose that might be better than nothing at all, but it certainly isn't as effective as devoting a greater period of time to exercise. On the other hand, cramming as much intensity as possible into short periods of time could be very detrimental ... it is hard on the heart and people have died from that sort of approach.
Now here's a question for you ... do you want to lose body fat or weight? Personally, I've never been concerned about my body fat content, but I am concerned about my weight. Last winter, I packed on some weight ... the joy of being a college student! At the beginning of April, I decided I needed to lose weight for the upcoming cycling season. Two months later, by the end of May, I had dropped 18 lbs. How? I cut the chocolate and chips intake by half ... and I tripled the quantity (not intensity) of cycling I was doing. That isn't the first time I've dropped that kind of weight in a relatively short period of time. I do it quite frequently in the spring exactly the same way. Then later in the season, I will add some intensity to my workouts to help me increase my speed.
Another question ... what is your goal with cycling? Do you want to race? What kind of racing? Are you interested in riding recreationally or just for "fitness"? Do you want to do the local century? Do you have a lot of hills in your area?
Yeah, it's entirely possible that your scale is inaccurate. No method of measuring body fat is 100% accurate. They are all estimates at best, and depend on many factors. Have a look at this article, for example:
https://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...14/ai_18700379
Is it possible that the scale actually is accurate, and over the last month I've been losing more muscular tissue than fat?
Have you been exercising? If you are regularly exercising, and remaining active for most of the day, you are probably not losing muscle tissue.
If so, what can I do to lose more fat? (I have a large quantity of muscle as a former football player/powerlifter and so am not overly concerned about a little muscular loss except in my legs where that might effect cycling.)
Ride more ... exercise more ... be more active.
There is a new theory being proclaimed around that the best way to lose weight is to exercise at a high intensity rather than at a lower intensity. Nonsense!! Sure, exercising at 80+% of your max heart rate will burn more calories, but you can't maintain that for any length of time.
Take the information in this article as an example: https://exercise.about.com/cs/cardiow.../aa022601a.htm
Suppose at 80+% of your max heart rate you can burn 6.86 calories per minute. Most people can only maintain 80+% of their max heart rates for a short period of time. Suppose a person can maintain it for 20 minutes before they are finished. That person will have burned 137.2 calories.
Now suppose at 60-65% of your max heart rate you can burn 4.86 calories per minute. Most people can maintain 60-65% of their max heart rates for quite a while. Suppose a person can maintain it for 2 hours (120 minutes) before they are finished. That person will have burned 583.2 calories.
1 lb = 3500 calories. If you exercise (i.e. cycle) for 2 hours a day, you could lose a pound a week without making any changes to your diet at all.
I suspect that this idea that working out at a higher intensity has come out because people don't want to take the time to exercise so they are cramming as much as they can into as short a period of time as possible. I suppose that might be better than nothing at all, but it certainly isn't as effective as devoting a greater period of time to exercise. On the other hand, cramming as much intensity as possible into short periods of time could be very detrimental ... it is hard on the heart and people have died from that sort of approach.
Now here's a question for you ... do you want to lose body fat or weight? Personally, I've never been concerned about my body fat content, but I am concerned about my weight. Last winter, I packed on some weight ... the joy of being a college student! At the beginning of April, I decided I needed to lose weight for the upcoming cycling season. Two months later, by the end of May, I had dropped 18 lbs. How? I cut the chocolate and chips intake by half ... and I tripled the quantity (not intensity) of cycling I was doing. That isn't the first time I've dropped that kind of weight in a relatively short period of time. I do it quite frequently in the spring exactly the same way. Then later in the season, I will add some intensity to my workouts to help me increase my speed.
Another question ... what is your goal with cycling? Do you want to race? What kind of racing? Are you interested in riding recreationally or just for "fitness"? Do you want to do the local century? Do you have a lot of hills in your area?
__________________
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
Rowan
My fave photo threads on BF
Century A Month Facebook Group
Machka's Website
Photo Gallery
12-25-06, 09:05 AM
#5
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Machka
Now here's a question for you ... do you want to lose body fat or weight?
) But, I would like to make sure that my lean tissue is the same (or nearly). I don't want to get to 220 lbs and still have 25% BF. That would mean I need to get down to 175 lbs !! 
Originally Posted by Machka
Another question ... what is your goal with cycling? Do you want to race? What kind of racing? Are you interested in riding recreationally or just for "fitness"? Do you want to do the local century? Do you have a lot of hills in your area?
- Lose weight
- Ride centuries
- Ride hard centuries
- Begin racing (again)
P.S. Love you randonneuring guys. You have my total admiration & respect. I was in the saddle once for 12-1/2 hours. I don't think I want to do it again.
